52. Volume 13- Number 2 - IP Australia

Plant Varieties 

Journal 

Quarter Two 2000 Volume 13 Number 2 

‘Korbasren’ syn Pink Bassino – Ground Cover Rose 

Official Journal of Plant Breeders Rights Australia

ADVERTISE YOUR NEW VARIETY 

OR SERVICES 

IN THE 


Journal 

ACasual 

Plant Breeders and their agents are invited to take this opportunity to promote their new 

plant varieties by advertising in the Plant Varieties Journal. Consultant Qualified Persons 

are also invited to advertise their services. The Journal is well circulated throughout the 

horticultural and agricultural industry. Advertising in the Journal will promote the 

commercialisation of new plant varieties and the services offered by the qualified persons. Our 

policy is to promote the varieties which are currently in the PBR scheme and the services of 

those who are currently accredited by the PBR office. 

The Journal also has a Service Directory. This Directory is suitable for advertising the services 

provided by Consultant Qualified Persons, Agents, Patent Attorneys, CTC sites or 

photographers. 

Advertising is available at a casual space rate as well as a four times rate, attracting a 

considerable discount of 25%! Advertisements will be published on the back cover or inside 

front and back covers. The front cover is restricted to full colour photographs of a PBR variety. 

Advertising Rates 

4 issues 

Front Cover Colour $1100.00 $3300.00 

Back Cover (Full Page only) Colour 825.00 2475.00 

(Full Page only) Mono 550.00 1650.00 

Inside Front Cover (Full Page) Mono 440.00 1320.00 

(Half Page) Mono 275.00 825.00 

Inside Back Cover (Full Page) Mono 330.00 990.00 

(Half Page) Mono 220.00 660.00 

Service Directory (6cm x 6cm) Mono 55.00 per spot 

For bookings or further information please contact Kathryn Dawes-Read on 02 6272 4228, fax 02 6272 3650 or email 

Kathryn.Dawes-Read@affa.gov.au

PLANT VARIETIES JOURNAL 2000 VOL 13 NO. 1 


Journal 

QUARTER TWO, 2000 VOLUME 13 NUMBER 2 

Part 1 – General Information 

Objections to Applications and Request for Revocation 2 

Applying for Plant Breeders Rights 2 

Requirement to Supply Comparative Varieties 3 

UPOV Developments 3 

Instructions to Authors 3 

Important Changes – Herbarium Specimen 5 

– Current PBR Forms 5 

Overseas Testing/Data 6 

Descriptions from the Voluntary Cereal Registration Scheme 7 

Part 2 – Public Notices 

Varieties Included in this Issue 7 

Acceptances 11 

Variety Descriptions 14 

Grants 58 

Denomination Changed 62 

Synonym Changed 62 

Agents Changed 62 

Change in Agent’s Name 63 

Change of Assignment 63 

Change in Owner’s Name 64 

Applications Withdrawn 66 

Grants Surrendered 66 

Corrigenda 67 

Appendix 1 – Fees 68 

Appendix 2 – List of PBRAC members 70 

Appendix 3 – Index of Accredited Consultant ‘Qualified Persons’ 71 

Appendix 4 – Index of Accredited Non-Consultant ‘Qualified 

Persons’ 77 

Appendix 5 – Addresses of UPOV and Member States 77 

Appendix 6 – Centralised Testing Centres 81 

Appendix 7 – List of Plant Classes for Denomination Purposes 84 

Appendix 8 – Register of Plant Varieties 85 

Appendix 9 – Common Names cross referenced to 

Botanical Names 85 

Varietal Descriptions from the Voluntary Cereal Registration 

Scheme 87 

SUBSCRIPTION ENQUIRIES AND ADVERTISING SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: 

PLANT BREEDERS RIGHTS AUSTRALIA 

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia 

GPO Box 858, Canberra ACT 2601 

Telephone: (02) 6272 4228 Facsimile: (02) 6272 3650 

Website: http://www.affa.gov.au/agfor/pbr/pbr.html 

CLOSING DATE FOR ISSUE VOL 13 NO 3: September 22, 2000. 

Anticipated closing date for Vol 13 No 4 December 15, 2000. 

Citation: Anon (2000). Plant Varieties Journal. Editors, Hossain T, Hulse N, Prakash K, 

Costa H, Waterhouse D, Dawes-Read K, Kingdom S, Blazey B, June 2000, 13(2). 

Acknowledgments: Lyn Craven, Australian National Herbarium, CSIRO Plant Industry 

for assistance with scientific names; Iain Dawson, Australian Cultivar Registration 

Authority for scientific advice; Roger Spencer, Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne and 

Greenlife Database for assistance with varietal names. 

This work is copyright©. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be 

reproduced without written permission. Inquiries should be directed to the Registrar, Plant Breeders Rights 

ISSN: 1030–9748 

Printed by National Capital Printing, Fyshwick, ACT 

Doug Waterhouse 

Registrar 

Bob Blazey 

Policy Development 

Tanvir Hossain 

Examiner 

Kathryn Dawes-Read 

Administration Officer 

Nik Hulse 

Deputy Registrar 

Katte Prakash 

Examiner 

Helen Costa 

Examiner 

S. (Angie) Kingdom 

Resource Co-ordinator 

1


The Plant Breeder’s Rights Scheme is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia. 


Objections to Applications and 

Requests for Revocation of a 

Grant or of a Declaration that a 

Plant Variety is Essentially 

Derived from Another Plant 

Variety 

The Plant Breeder’s Rights scheme is administered 

consistent with the model law of the International 

Convention for the Protection of New Plant Varieties 1991 

(UPOV 91), that is, applicants are entitled to protection, in 

the absence of proof to the contrary. 

The Plant Breeder’s Rights Office (PBRO) is not 

required to prove the views, assertions, and opinions of 

persons challenging protection for plant varieties. Those 

objecting to / commenting on applications or requesting/ 

commenting on revocation of a grant or declaration that 

a plant variety is essentially derived from another plant 

variety must provide conclusive supporting evidence 

why their objection / comment / request should be 

upheld. It cannot be stressed too strongly that conclusive 

argumentation should be provided from the outset. 

Objections to Applications 

A person may make objections to applications for PBR if (i) 

their commercial interests would be affected adversely, and 

(ii) the application will not fulfil all the conditions required 

by the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act. 

Objections to applications must be lodged with the 

Registrar no later than six months after the date the 

description of the variety is published in this journal. The 

objector must provide evidence of adverse affect on their 

commercial interests and that the application should not be 

granted. 

The Registrar of the Plant Breeder’s Rights Office (PBRO) 

is required to give a copy of the objection to the applicant. 

The objection is also available to the general public on 

request. The applicant has the opportunity to respond to the 

evidence presented. The Registrar then decides whether or 

not the objection will be upheld and, subsequently, whether 

the application will be granted. The PBRO is under no 

obligation to enter into further dialogue regarding an 

objection or to communicate reasons why an objection is 

not upheld. If an objection is upheld it will be notified in 

this journal. 

A payment of $100 is required on lodgement of the 

objection. Additional costs of $75 per hour for work 

undertaken in relation to the objection will be billed to the 

objector. 

Comments on Applications 

The PBRO accepts comments on applications. However, the 

scheme is managed on normal risk management lines and 

with an emphasis on the requirement that challengers with 

a commercial interest must demonstrate conclusively that 

an application should not be granted. 

All written comment will be acknowledged. The PBRO is 

under no obligation to enter into further communication 

regarding comments. If an application does not proceed to 

a grant it will be notified in this journal. 

Requests for Revocation, (where 

an individual’s interests are 

affected) of: 

• a Grant 

• a Declaration that a Plant 

Variety is Essentially Derived 

A person may, when their interests are affected adversely, 

apply for the revocation of: 

• a grant of PBR; or 

• a declaration that a plant variety is essentially derived 

from another plant variety. 

The person requesting revocation is required to lodge a 

revocation payment fee of $500. The person seeking 

revocation of a grant or declaration that a plant variety is 

essentially derived from another plant, must provide 

conclusive evidence of adverse affect on their interests and 

that the grant should be revoked. 

The PBRO also accepts information regarding revocation of 

grants and declarations of essentially derived plant varieties. 

Such information must demonstrate conclusively that a 

grant or declaration should not have been made. All written 

information will be acknowledged. The PBRO is under no 

obligation to enter into further communication regarding 

information provided. 

Applying For Plant Breeders 

Rights 

Applications are accepted from the original breeder of a 

new variety (from their employer if the breeder is an 

employee) or from a person who has acquired ownership 

from the original breeder. Overseas breeders need to 

appoint an agent to represent their interests in Australia. 

Interested parties should contact the PBR office and an 

accredited Qualified Person (Appendix 3) experienced in 

the plant species in question. 

2


Requirement to Supply 

Comparative Varieties 

Once an application has been accepted by the PBR office, it 

is covered by provisional protection. Also it immediately 

becomes a ‘variety of common knowledge’ and thus may be 

required by others as a comparator for their applications 

with a higher application number. 

Applicants are reminded that they are required to release 

propagative material for comparative testing provided that 

the material is used for no other purpose and all material 

relating to the variety is returned when the trial is complete. 

The expenses incurred in the provision of material for 

comparative trials is borne by those conducting the trials. 

As the variety is already under provisional protection, any 

use outside the conditions outlined above would qualify as 

an infringement and would be dealt with under section 53 

of the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act. 

Applicants having difficulties procuring varieties for use in 

comparative trials are urged to contact the PBR office 

immediately. 

UPOV Developments 

Information on UPOV and its activities is available on the 

INTERNET located at http://www.upov.int 

Kyrgyz Republic became the forty-fifth member state of 

UPOV on June 26, 2000. The Act 1991 of the UPOV 

Convention has entered into force for Kyrgyz Republic 

from that date. 

The complete list UPOV member states with their address 

and current status of ratification is given in Appendix 5. 

Instruction to Authors: Format for 

Preparing Detailed Description for 

Plant Varieties Journal 

A detailed description for the Plant Varieties Journal must 

be prepared under following headings: 

• Details of the Application 

• Characteristics 

• Origin and Breeding 

• Choice of Comparator(s) 

• Comparative Trial 

• Prior Applications and Sales 

• Name of the person who prepared the description 

• Comparative Table 

• At the discretion of the QP/Applicant, scientific 

papers and other relevant information/publications 

can be appended to the detailed description 

Please note that the PBR office retains editorial control for 

all published material. Accordingly there may be instances 

when non-critical portions of a description (eg particularly 

verbose methodologies or appendices) are not published, 

although they do remain part of the detailed description. In 

some cases some non-distinct characteristics presented in a 

table may be omitted for publication 

Following are some notes for preparing the descriptions 

under the above headings with some examples of style and 

format: 

Details of the Application 

This will include the correct botanical name; the common 

name of the species; name and synonym (if any) of the 

variety; application number and the acceptance date; details 

of the applicant; details of the agent (if any). 

For consistency, botanical and common names should 

follow those of: Hortus Third, Staff of the LH Bailey 

Hortorium, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1976; Census 

of Australian Vascular Plants, RJ Hnatiuk, AGPS, 1990; 

The Smart Gardeners Guide to Common Names of Plants, 

M Adler, Rising Sun Press, 1994; A Checklist of Economic 

Plants in Australia, CSIRO, 1994; Australian Plant Name 

Index, Australian Biological Resources Study, AGPS, 1991. 

Example 1 

Genus species 

Common name of the species 

‘Variety’ syn Synonym (if applicable) 

Application No: xxxx/xxx Accepted: dd month year. 

Applicant: Applicant’s Name, Town, State 

(abbreviation) and Country (if not Australia). 

Agent: Agent’s Name, Town, State (abbreviation). 

Characteristics 

Characteristics should be described in the following order: 

Plant, Stem, Leaf, Inflorescence, Flower and flower parts, 

Fruit and fruit parts, Seed, Other characters (disease 

resistance, stress tolerance, quality etc). Characters within 

subheadings should generally be in the following order: 

habit, height, length, width, size, shape, colour (RHS colour 

chart reference with edition), other. Use a concise 

taxonomic style in which subheadings are followed by a 

colon and characters are separated by a comma. Where 

there is a UPOV technical guideline available make sure 

that the asterisk characteristics are included in the 

description. 

Example 2 

Characteristics (Table nn, Figure nn) Plant: habit 

narrow bushy, height medium, early maturing. Stem: 

anthocyanin absent, internodes short. Leaf: length long, 

width narrow, variegation present, predominant colour 

green (RHS 137A), secondary margin colour pale greenyellow 

(RHS 1A). Inflorescence: corymb. Flower: early, 

pedicel short, diameter small (average 12.5mm), petals 5, 

petal colour yellow (RHS 12A), sepals 5 …..etc (Note: 

give the reference for the edition of RHS colour chart 

used, eg. all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1986 

edition) 

3


Origin and Breeding 

Indicate how the variety was originated, ie. controlled 

pollination, open pollination, induced mutation, 

spontaneous mutation, introduction and selection, seedling 

selection etc. Give the name of the parents. Also give the 

characteristics of the parental material by which they differ 

from the candidate variety . Briefly describe the breeding 

procedure and selection criteria used in developing the new 

variety. Also indicate the mode of propagation used during 

breeding. Give the name(s) of the breeder. 

Example 3 

Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination : seed 

parent S90-502-1 x pollen parent S90-1202-1. The seed 

parent was characterised by early flowering, dark green 

non-variegated leaves and compact bushy habit. The 

pollen parent was characterised by late flowering, 

variegated leaves and narrow bushy habit. Hybridisation 

took place in , in . From this 

cross, seedling number S 3736 was chosen in 1993 on the 

basis of flowering time. Selection criteria: variegated 

leaves, compact bushy habit and early flowering. 

Propagation: a number mature stock plants were 

generated from this seedling through tissue culture and 

were found to be uniform and stable. The ‘Variety’ will 

be commercially propagated by vegetative cuttings from 

the stock plants. Breeder: , , 

. 

Example 4 

Origin and Breeding Introduction and selection: 5 

cycles of selection within 

originating from and supplied by 

the under a materials transfer 

agreement. When grown CI2204 was heterogeneous with 

both hooded and non-hooded types and differences in 

seed colour. Repeated selection for hooded types 

produced seven breeding lines (726.1-726.7) which were 

evaluated for forage and seed production potential. From 

these lines, an uniform single line known as 726.2.1 was 

selected to become ‘Variety’. Selection criteria: seedling 

vigour, dry matter yield, uniformly hooded (awnless), 

seed colour (black). Propagation: by seed. Breeder: 

, , . 

Choice of Comparators 

As choosing the most appropriate comparators may be the 

most crucial part of the trial, we suggest the QPs do more 

research and record their decisions before making the final 

selection. Under this heading briefly indicate what factors 

you have considered in choosing the comparator(s) for the 

trial. It is strongly recommended that the parental materials 

or the source germplasm is included in the trial for 

comparison purposes. If the parents are excluded indicate 

the reason(s). 

Example 5 

Choice of Comparators ‘Comparator 1’, ‘Comparator 

2’ and ‘Comparator 3’ were initially considered for the 

comparative trial as these are similar varieties of 

common knowledge. ‘Comparator 1’ is a widely 

available commercial variety of the same species, 

however it has non variegated leaves. Therefore it was 

excluded from the trial. ‘Comparator 2’, was chosen for 

its variegated leaves and ‘Comparator 3’ was chosen for 

its compact growth habit and variegated leaves. The 

parents were not considered for the trial because the 

‘Variety’ is clearly distinguishable from the seed parent 

by its variegated leaves and from the pollen parent by 

flowering time and growth habit. 

Example 6 

Choice of Comparators ‘Comparator 1’ was chosen 

because it is the original source material from which the 

variety was selected. Comparator 2’ was selected for its 

similarity with the ‘Variety’ in seed colour. No other 

similar varieties of common knowledge have been 

identified. 

Comparative Trial 

List the varieties or forms used as comparators – the most 

similar varieties/forms of common knowledge. State the 

location and date of the trial. Give relevant details on 

propagation, pot/plot size and type, growing medium, 

chemical treatments, lighting, irrigation, or management 

which may be necessary to repeat the trials. State the type 

of trial design used, the total number of specimens in the 

trial and how they were arranged. State the number of 

specimens from which measurements/observations were 

taken. Also indicate how the specimen was selected and the 

sampling regime. 

Example 7 

Comparative Trial: Comparator(s): ‘Comparator 2’, 

‘Comparator 3’. Location: Carrum Downs, VIC 

(Latitude 38˚06′South, elevation 35m), summer-autumn 

1996/97. Conditions: trial conducted in a polyhouse, 

plants propagated from cutting, rooted cuttings planted 

into 210mm pots filed with soilless potting mix (pine 

bark base), nutrition maintained with slow release 

fertilisers, pest and disease treatments applied as 

required. Trial design: fifteen pots of each variety 

arranged in a completely randomised design. 

Measurements: from ten plants at random. One sample 

per plant. 

Prior Applications and Sales 

Indicate the prior overseas applications with Country, Year 

of lodgement, Current status and Name applied in the 

following format. 

Example 8 

Country Year Current Status Name 

Applied 

Germany 1994 Granted ‘Variety’ 

Denmark 1994 Granted ‘Variety’ 

Also indicate date and country of first sale and date of first 

sale in Australia. 

4


Example 9 

First sold in Germany in 1994. First Australian sale nil. 

Name of the person who prepared the description 

Name and address of the person who prepared the 

description. It is preferable that the description be prepared 

by the Qualified Person or at the very least the draft has 

been seen and approved by the QP before final submission. 

Please note that it is a responsibility of the QP under the 

PBR Act to verify the particulars of the detailed description 

are accurate. 

Example 10 

Description: Name, Company (optional), Town/suburb, 

State (abbreviated) 

Comparative Table 

While preparing the table NEVER use the “table creating 

features” of word processing packages as they insert hidden 

formatting blocks that are difficult to remove before 

publication. Instead, use a single tab mark to align columns. 

NEVER use drawing objects to create lines, boxes or 

shading. Instead use the underscore character ( _ ) to create 

lines for tables. Tables should normally be either 8.5cm 

wide (half page) or 17.5cm wide (full page). If necessary a 

very wide table can be presented in landscape orientation. 

Please note the following points when preparing the 

comparative table: 

• The candidate variety is always on the left of the table. 

If the same table is used for two or more candidate 

varieties, the candidate varieties are arranged in order of 

application numbers, higher application number to the 

left of the table. Comparators are always to the right of 

the candidate(s). 

• Arrange the characteristics in order – this should be the 

same as the order in the UPOV technical guidelines for 

the species. Please ensure that each characteristics 

marked with an asterisk is included. 

• If a UPOV technical guideline is not available use the 

order same as in the text part: Plant, Stem, Leaf, 

Inflorescence, Flower, Flower parts, Fruit, Fruit parts, 

Seed, special characters etc. 

• For measured characteristics Mean, Standard Deviation, 

Least Significant Difference (LSD)* at P≤0.01 is 

mandatory. 

• When quoting significant differences please give the 

level of probability in the following format: P≤0.001, 

P≤0.01, or ns. 

• For discrete characters do not use scores. Please give a 

word description. eg. round, medium, tall etc. 

• For ranked characteristics just give the numbers, do not 

use ‘normal’ statistical analysis. Non-parametric 

statistical procedures may be used in such cases. 

• Use only the number of significant decimal places 

appropriate to the level of accuracy of the observations. 

• If there are two or more candidate varieties, use range 

tests rather than an LSD, such as Duncan’s Multiple 

Range Test or any other appropriate multiple range test. 

Enter the grouping characters as alphabet superscripts. 

Completed Part 2 Applications should be sent to: 

Plant Breeders Rights Australia 

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – 

Australia 

GPO Box 858 CANBERRA ACT 2601 

To facilitate editing, descriptions may also be sent via 

E-mail to: Tanvir.Hossain@affa.gov.au or PBR@affa.gov.au 

Note: a signed copy of the Part 2 application along with the 

examination fee, one slide or photograph must also be sent 

by post. 

Important Changes 

HERBARIUM SPECIMENS 

It is a requirement of the PBR Act that, for all native 

species, a suitable specimen be sent to the Australian 

Cultivar Registration Authority (ACRA). The processing of 

these specimens attracts a fee from the ACRA (currently 

$50). Payment of the fee should be sent directly to the 

ACRA along with the specimen and a completed Herb1 

form. This form has recently been updated. The current 

form Herb 1(03/00) has three components: SUBMISSION 

OF SPECIMEN OF AUSTRALIAN NATIVE VARIETY 

TO THE ACRA, ACRA HERBARIUM SPECIMEN and 

CONFIRMATION OF SUBMISSION OF SPECIMEN TO 

THE ACRA. Please use the current version of the Herb 1 

form for any future submission to the ACRA. 

CURRENT PBR FORMS 

The official forms for PBR purposes are periodically 

updated. A list of current PBR forms with their numbers and 

date of last update is given below. When a form is updated, 

the month and the year of the last update follow the form 

number within parentheses. For example, Form P1 was last 

updated in September 1998 and therefore this form gets a 

designation of Form P1 (9/98). We also encourage you to 

consult the ‘Guidelines for Completing Part 1 Application 

Form’ before filing in the Part 1 Application. To avoid 

delays we suggest that you use the latest version of the 

forms. 

The Part 2 form has been updated in May 1999 to include 

the information on the “Confirmation of Submission of 

Propagating Material to a Genetic Resource Centre”. 

Previously this was a separate form to be filled in at the time 

of final granting of PBR. We now encourage that the 

information on Genetic Resource Centre is given at the time 

of the Part 2 submission to avoid any delay to process the 

application at the final granting stage. 

If you do not have the latest version of the form(s), please 

contact the PBR office. Alternatively, forms can be 

downloaded from the PBR web site at 

http://www.affa.gov.au/agfor/pbr/pbr.html/. 

5


Name of Form Form Number Last Updated 

Application for Plant Breeders Rights Form P1 September 1998 


Guidelines for Completing Part1 Part1ins September 1998 

Application Form 

Application for Plant Breeders Rights Form P2 May 1999 

Part 2 – Description of New Variety 

Nomination of a Qualified Person Form QP 1 April 1999 

Certification by a Qualified Person Form QP 2 April 1999 

Proposed Variety Names Form DEN1 December 1995 

Extension of Provisional Protection Form EXT2 December 1999 

Exemption of a Taxon from Farm saved seed Form ET1 September 1998 

Status of Application Form STAT 1 November 1995 

ACRA Herbarium Specimen Form Herb 1 March 2000 

Overseas Testing/Data 

The PBR Act allows DUS data produced in other countries 

(overseas data) be used in lieu of conducting a comparative 

trial in Australia provided certain conditions relating to the 

filing of applications, sufficiency of the data and the 

likelihood that the candidate variety will express the 

distinctive characteristic(s) in the same way when grown 

locally. Briefly the overseas data could be considered 

where: 

• The first PBR application relating to the candidate 

variety has been lodged overseas, and 

• the variety has previously been test grown in a 

UPOV member country using official UPOV test 

guidelines and test procedures, (ie. equivalent to a 

comparative trial in Australia) and 

• either, all the most similar varieties of common 

knowledge (including those in Australia) have been 

included in the overseas DUS trial, or 

• the new overseas variety is so clearly distinct from 

all the Australian varieties of common knowledge 

that further DUS test growing is not warranted, and 

• sufficient data and descriptive information is 

available to publish a description of the variety in an 

accepted format in Plant Varieties Journal; and to 

satisfy the requirements of the PBR Act. 

The Qualified Person, in consultation with the 

agent/applicant, and perhaps other specialists and 

taxonomists, will need to evaluate the overseas data, test 

report and photographs to see if the application does fulfil 

all PBR Office requirements, and then advise the 

agent/applicant: 

• either, to submit Part 2 incorporating a description 

for publication, any additional data and photographs 

and to pay the examination fee; 

• or, to conduct a DUS trial in Australia, 

recommending to the applicant/agent which 

additional varieties of common knowledge to 

include; 

• or, submit Part 2 including additional data 

(information about similar varieties in Australia to 

show that they are clearly distinct from the candidate 

variety that a further DUS test growing including the 

similar varieties is not warranted and that the variety 

displays the distinctive characteristics when grown 

in Australia) 

Please note that the PBR office does not obtain overseas 

DUS test reports on behalf of applicants. It is the sole 

responsibility of the applicants to obtain these reports 

directly from the relevant overseas testing authorities. 

Where applicants already have the report they are advised to 

submit a certified true copy of the report with the Part 1 

application. Applicants, or those duly authorised, may 

certify the copy. 

If you do not have the test report available at the time of 

Part-1 application then you are advised to submit the Part-1 

application without the test report. However, you should 

make arrangements to procure the DUS test report directly 

from the relevant testing authority. When the report 

becomes available, a certified copy should be supplied to 

the QP and the PBR office. 

When the trial is based on an UPOV technical guideline and 

test report in an official UPOV language (English, German 

or French), it can be lodged in support of the application. In 

other cases the test reports must be in English. 

The applicant/agent and Qualified Person should use the 

overseas test report to complete Part 2 of the application, 

making a decision on how to proceed in view of the 

completeness of the information, the comparators (if any) 

used in the overseas DUS trial and their knowledge of 

6


similar Australian varieties that may not have been included 

in the overseas test report. 

If a description is based on an overseas test report, 

Australian PBR will not be granted until after the decision 

to grant PBR in the country producing the DUS test is 

made. The final decision on the acceptability of overseas 

data rest with the PBR office. 

Descriptions from the Voluntary 

Cereal Registration Scheme 

The Plant Varieties Journal now includes descriptions of 

cultivars registered under the Voluntary Cereal Registration 

Scheme. Please note that the publication of these 

descriptions in the Plant Varieties Journal does not qualify 

the cultivars to be protected under Plant Breeder’s Rights 

(PBR). PBR is an entirely different scheme and there are 

certain requirements under the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 

1994, which must be satisfied to be eligible for registration 

under PBR. However, it is possible that some cultivars 

published under the voluntary scheme are also registered 

under PBR. When a cultivar is registered under both 

schemes, the current PBR status of the cultivar is indicated 

in the descriptions. 

For information on registering a new cereal cultivar under 

the voluntary scheme please refer to the ‘Cereal 

Registration Scheme’ section at the back of this issue. 

Please note there is no descriptions from the Voluntary 

Cereal Registration Scheme in this issue. 

Part 2 – Public Notices 

Varieties Included in this Issue 

An index reference for common names with botanical 

names is published in Appendix 9. 

Botanical Variety Page 

Name Name Number 

Actinidia Chinensis 

‘HORT 16A’ 67 

Aglaonema hybrid 

‘Brilliant Beauty’ A 58 

‘Grey Dawn’ A 58 

‘Lisa Joy’ A 58 

‘Silver Rain’ A 58 

Aglaonema nitidum 

‘Rhapsody in Green’ A 58 

Alnus jorullensis 

‘Royal Cascade’ A syn Weeping Willy A 64 

Alstroemeria hybrid 

‘Alaska’ 66 

‘Atlanta’ 66 

‘Flamengo’ 66 

‘Little Moon’ 66 

‘Little Star’ 66 

‘Little Sun’ 66 

‘Stamial’ syn Pink Minetti 66 

‘Stasabi’ A syn Sabina A 58 

‘Zanta’ syn Violetta 66 

Angelonia angustifolia 

‘Balangdeum’ 64 

‘Balanglav’ 64 

‘Balangpink’ 64 

‘Balangpurp’ 64 

‘Balangwhit’ 64 

Angophora costata 

‘Little Gumball’ 64 

Anigozanthos hybrid 

‘Bush Ember’ A 63 

‘Bush Garnet’ A 63 

‘Bush Heritage’ A 63 

‘Bush Ochre’ A 63 

‘Bush Pearl’ 63 

‘Bush Splendour’ A 63 

‘Bush Twilight’ A 64 

‘White Satin’ 11 

Anigozanthos manglesii 

‘GALPM1’ 11 

Anthurium hybrid 

‘Gemini’ 11 

‘Northstar’ 11 

Aster hybrid 

‘Dark Milka’ 62 

‘Karmijin Milka’ 62 

‘Milka’ 62 

‘Peter’s White’ 62 

Avena sativa 

‘Quoll’ 14 

Barleria cristata 

‘Jetstreak’ 16 

Bougainvillea hybrid 

‘Jazzi’ 16 

‘Jellibene’ 17 

‘Marlu’ 17 

‘Siggi’ 18 

‘Toffi’ 18 

‘Tosca’ 19 

7




Brachyscome hybrid 

‘Mauve Mystique’ 11 

Bracteantha bracteata 

‘Broome Pearl’ A 58 

‘Coolgardie Gold’ 62 

Bracteantha hybrid 

‘Wanetta Sunshine’ 19, 67 

Brassica napus var oleifera 

‘TM4’ 11 

‘TM8’ 11 

Buchloe dactyloides 

‘Oasis’ A 59 

Camellia hybrid 

‘Sweet Jane’ A 63 

Camellia sasanqua 

‘Pardonna’ 11 

‘Parillumination’ 11 

‘Parjanell’ 11 

‘Parsandra’ 11 

‘Parsylvia’ 11 

Chamelaucium uncinatum 

‘GALCP1’ 11 

Chloris gayana 

‘Nemkat’ A 59 

Cicer arietinum 

‘Bumper’ A 59 

‘Gully’ A 59 

Citrus sinensis 

‘Powell Summer Navel’ A 59 

Clematis cirrhosa 

‘Landsdowne Gem’ 66 

Clematis montana 

‘Broughton Star’ 66 

Codiaeum mora 

‘Zulu’ 11 

Codiaeum variegatum 

‘Grubell’ syn Bell 20 

Coleonema pulchrum 

‘Mellow Yellow’ 64 

Cordyline hybrid 

‘Red Fountain’ 11 

Cuphea hyssopifolia 

‘Karissa’ 21 

‘Lemon Squash’ 11 

‘Little Hatter’ 22 

‘Lois’ 11, 23 

‘Shona’ 24 

‘Victoria’ 25 

Cupressus glabra 

‘Highlight’ A 59 

‘Limeglow’ A 59 

Cynodon dactylon 

‘Riley’s Evergreen’ A 59 

Danthonia richardsonii 

‘Hume’ 66 

Dianella ensifolia 

‘Border Gold’ 26 

Dianthus barbatus x Dianthus superbus 

‘Statropur’ syn Gipsy 67 

Dianthus hybrid 

‘Codianki’ 27 

Diascia spp. 

‘Codiach’ 27 

‘Codiape’ 28 

Echinacea purpurea 

‘Kim’s Knee High’ 11 

8 



Euphorbia pulcherrima 

‘Duecabrired’ A syn Red Fox Tabaluga 

Red A 59 

‘Duecohopi’ A syn Red Fox Coco Hot 

Pink A 59 

‘Duedeluxe’ A syn Red Fox De Luxe A 59 

‘Dueimco’ A syn Red Fox Coco 2000 A 59 

‘Duemal’ A syn Red Fox Malibu Red A 59 

‘Duenidared’ A syn Red Fox Victory 

Red A 59 

‘Fiscor Creme’ A syn Cortez White A 59 

‘Fiscor’ A syn Cortez Red A 59 

Festuca arundinacea 

‘Resolute’ 28 

Ficus benjamina 

‘Baft’ syn Bushy Princess 29 

‘Vivian’ syn Indigo 30 

Ficus elastica 

‘Melany’ 31 

Fragaria x ananassa 

‘QHI Earlibelle’ 11 

‘QHI Earliblush’ 12 

‘QHI Earlimist’ 12 

Gaura lindheimeri 

‘Siskiyou Pink’ A 60 

Glycine max 

‘Jabiru’ 12 

Gossypium hirsutum 

‘CS 7S’ 67 

‘DP 5415’ syn Blanca 67 

‘DP 5690’ syn Linda 67 

‘Sicala 34’ 67 

‘Sicala 40’ A 60 

‘Sicot 50i’ 67 

‘Siokra L-23i’ 67 

‘Siokra V-15i’ 67 

Grevillea hybrid 

‘Birdsong’ 12 

Grevillea preissii x Grevillea fililoba 

‘Ellabella’ 12 

Gypsophila paniculata 

‘Dangypmini’ 62 

‘Dangysha’ syn Yukinko 62 

Hardenbergia violacea 

‘White Out’ 64 

Hebe hybrid 

‘Gold Beauty’ A 60 

‘Heebie Jeebies’ 64 

Hibiscus rosa-sinensis 

‘West Coast Jewel’ A 60 

‘West Coast Red’ A 60 

Hordeum vulgare 

‘Lofty Nijo’ 12 

‘Venture’ 67 

Impatiens hawkeri 

‘Balcelavgo’ syn Celebration 

Lavender Glow 64 

‘Balcelilae’ syn Celebration Light 

Lavender III 64 

‘Balcelisow’ syn Celebration Salmon II 64 

‘Balcelrost’ syn Celebration Rose Star 65 

Impatiens hybrid 

‘Ambience’ A 64 

‘Ambrosia’ A 64 

‘BFP-368 Rose’ A syn Rose Celebration A 65 

‘BSR-152 Dark Pink’ A syn Celebration 

Deep Pink A 65




‘BSR-186 Bonfire Orange’ A syn 

Celebration Orange Bonfire A 65 

‘Celdered’ syn Celebration Deep Red 62, 65 

‘Celebration Candy Pink’ A 65 

‘Celebration Pure White’ A 65 

‘Illusion’ A 64 

‘Innocence’ A 64 

‘Purple Star’ A syn Celebration Purple 

Star A 65 

‘Shadow’ A 64 

‘Tempest’ A 64 

Impatiens wallerana 

‘Balfiecobl’ syn Fiesta Coral Bells 65 

‘Balfieorce’ syn Fiesta Orange Spice 65 

‘Codimpca’ 32 

‘Fiesta White’ A 65 

‘Lavender Orchid’ A syn Fiesta 

Lavender Orchid Double A 65 

‘Pink Ruffle’ A syn Fiesta Pink Ruffle A 65 

‘Sparkler Rose’ A syn Fiesta Sparkler 

Rose Double A 65 

Kalanchoe spp 

‘Elves Bells’ A 60 

Lavandula angustifolia 

‘Miss Katherine’ 12 

Lavandula hybrid 

‘Silver Feather’ 33 

Lavandula stoechas ssp. luisieri 

‘Tickled Pink’ A 60 

Leptospermum hybrid 

‘Emily NAO’ 12 

‘Joy’ 12 

‘Martin’ 12 

‘Naoko’ 12 

Leptospermum laevigatum 

‘Beach Baby’ 33 

Leucadendron gandogeri x spissifolium 

‘Corringle Gold’ 34 

Leucospermum glabrum 

‘LS90-4A-0’ 12 

Lilium hybrid 

‘Hoffrica Blue Eyes’ 35 

Lolium multiflorum 

‘Dargle’ 35 

Lolium perenne 

‘Arena 1’ 62 

‘Quartet’ 35 

Lophostemon confertus 

‘Billy Bunter’ 67 

Lupinus albus 

‘Lucyanne’ 66 

Malus domestica 

‘Joburn’ 38 

‘Lochbuie Red Braeburn’ 39 

‘Mariri Red’ 37 

‘MC 38’ 12 

‘Rosy Glow’ syn Pink Aurora 62 

Mangifera indica 

‘Honey Gem’ 12 

Medicago sativa 

‘Alpha Express’ 12 

‘Aquarius’ A 63 

‘Genesis’ A 63 

‘Rapide’ 40 

‘UQL-1’ 41 

‘Venus’ 63 



Medicago truncatula 

‘Jester’ syn Z-914 40 

Metrosideros perforatus 

‘Wee Willy Winkie’ 12 

Olearia axillaris 

‘Little Smokie’ 43 

Osmanthus delavayi 

‘Heaven Sent’ A 60 

‘Pearly Gates’ A 60 

Panicum laxum 

‘Shadegro’ A 63 

Pelargonium hortorum x Pelargonium peltatum 

‘Balgalpipn’ syn Galleria Pink Punch 65 

‘Balgalsabe’ syn Galleria Scarlet Beauty 65 

Pelargonium peltatum 

‘Balcolav’ syn Colorcade Lavender Glow 65 

‘Balcolburg’ syn Colorcade Burgundy 65 

‘Balcolilac’ syn Colorcade Lilac 65 

‘Balcolink’ syn Colorcade Pink 65 

‘Pentom’ 43 

‘Penvel’ 44 

Pelargonium x hortorum 

‘BFP-721 Bright Lilac’ syn Designer 

Bright Lilac 65 

‘BFP-788 Bright Scarlet’ syn Designer 

Bright Scarlet 65 

‘BFP-838 Dark Red’ syn Designer Dark 

Red 65 

‘Pink Heart’ syn Showcase Pink Heart 65 

‘Showcase Salmon’ 65 

‘Starburst Red’ 65 

Pentas lanceolata 

‘Blushing Pearl’ 46 

Petunia hybrid 

‘Cobink’ 46 

‘Revolution Bluevein’A syn Blue 

Highlights A 62 

‘Revolution Brilliantpink’ A 62 

‘Revolution Pastel Pink No. 2’ A 62 

‘Revolution Pinkmini’ A syn Blushing 

Pink A 62 

‘Revolution Pinkvein’ A syn Pink 

Highlights A 62 

‘Revolution Violet No. 2’ A 62 

‘Revolution White’ A 62 

‘Sanberubu’ A syn Blue Chimes A 62 

‘Sanberupi’ A syn Pink Chimes A 62 

‘Sunbelchipi’ A syn Cherry Pink A 62 

‘Sunbelkubu’ A syn Trailing Blue A 62 

‘Sunbelkuho’ A syn Trailing White A 62 

‘Sunbelkupi’ A syn Trailing Pink A 62 

Phaseolus vulgaris 

‘Hyperno’ 12 

Philodendron tatei 

‘P2’ 12 

Pisum sativum 

‘Morgan PSE 23’ 13, 47 

‘Snowpeak’ 48 

Pittosporum ralphii 

‘Cathy’ 48 

Pittosporum tenuifolium 

‘PTGP1’ 49 

‘PTSS1’ 49 

‘PTSS2’ 50 

9




Prunus hybrid 

‘Atlas’ A 60 

‘Zaipime’ A 60 

Prunus persica 

‘Kialla’ 67 

Regelia velutina 

‘GALRV1’ 13 

Rhodanthe anthemoides 

‘Southern Stars’ 13 

Rhododendron hybrid 

‘Australian Celebration’ 66 

‘Coffee Caramel’ 66 

Rhododendron simsii 

‘Bina’ 13 

‘Jory’ 13 

Rhododendron vireya hybrid 

‘Thai Prince’ 13 

Robinia pseudoacacia 

‘Lace Lady’ 67 

Rosa hybrid 

‘Auswill’ 13 

‘Chameleon’ A 64 

‘Helhein’ syn Super Sparkle 66 

‘Helkleger’ syn Super Elfin 66 

‘Helklewei’ syn Super Bianca 66 

‘Internatro’ 13 

‘Interpachy’ 13 

‘Meicarsel’ syn Mascara Minijet 67 

‘Nano Nagle’ 66 

‘Pink Kardinal’ 67 

‘Prebian Candy’ 13 

‘Ruiconti’ syn Yellow Unique 67 

‘Selcoulomb’ 13 

Rosmarinus officinalis 

‘Renzels’ A syn Irene A 60 

Saccharum hybrid 

‘89H157’ 13 

‘Tellus’ 13 

Saponaria ocymoides 

‘Fairy Floss’ 13 

Scaevola aemula 

‘Rhapsody’ 51 

‘Sweet Serenade’ 51 

Schlumbergera truncata 

‘Aspen’ A 60 

‘Millennium Fantasy’ 13 

‘Savannah’ A 60 

‘St. Charles’ A 60 

Serruria florida x Serruria rosea 

‘Carmen’ 13 

Solanum tuberosum 

‘Argos’ A 60 

‘Pike’ 65 

‘Redgem’ A 60 

‘Redstar’ 52 

‘Smith’s Starlight’ 66 

‘Victoria’ 53 

Spathiphyllum hybrid 

‘Ceres’ A syn Ceres Star A 61 

Sutera cordata 

‘Bridal Showers’ 54 

Syzygium luehmannii 

‘Petite Blush’ A 61 

Syzygium paniculatum 

‘Little Lil’ A 61 

Telopea speciosissima 

‘Dreaming’ A 61 



Telopea speciossissima x Telopea oreades 

‘T90-1-0-1’ 13 

Themeda triandra 

‘Tangara’ A 61 

Torenia fournieri 

‘Sunrenilabu’ A syn Blue Magic A 62 

Trifolium alexandrinum 

‘Elite II’ A 65 

Trifolium brachycalcinum 

‘Nuba’ A 63 

Trifolium incarnatum 

‘Blaza’ 65 

Trifolium repens 

‘Waverley’ A 66 

Trifolium resupinatum 

‘Lightning’ A 66 

Trifolium resupinatum var majus 

‘Laser’ A 61 

‘Leeton’ A 61 

Trifolium subterraneum ssp brachycalycinum 

‘Antas’ 63 

‘Campeda’ 63 

Triticum aestivum 

‘H45’ A 61 

‘JM73’ 13 

‘Kukri’ 14 

‘Yitpi’ 14 

Triticum turgidum ssp turgidum 

‘Tamaroi’ 55 

‘Arrivato’ 67 

‘Line 4210.23.6’ 67 

x Triticosecale 

‘Tickit’ 14 

Verbena hybrid 

‘Sanmaripi’ A syn Pink Profusion A 63 

‘Sanmarisu’ A syn Scarlet Fire A 63 

‘Sunmarefu TP-L’ A syn Lilac 

Reflections A 63 

‘Sunmarefu TP-P’ A syn Pink Passion A 63 

‘Sunmarefu TP-V’ A syn Purple Passion A 63 

‘Sunmarefu TP-W’ A syn White 

Lightning A 63 

‘Sunmariba’ A syn Violet Surprise A 63 

‘Sunmaririho’ A syn White Sensation A 63 

‘Sunmariripi’ A syn Coral Pink A 63 

Vicia faba 

‘Ascot VF’ 62 

Vicia narbonensis 

‘Tanami’ 56 

Vicia sativa 

‘Vedura’ A 61, 66 

‘Velero’ A 61, 66 

‘Vestar’ A 61, 66 

Vicia villosa 

‘Capello’ A 66 

‘Haymaker Plus’ A 66 

Vitis vinifera 

‘Ralli Seedless’ A 64 

‘Sugrathirteen’ 14 

‘Sugratwelve’ 14 

Xanthostemon chrysanthus 

‘Trailblazer’ 57 

Zingiber officinale 

‘Buderim Bold’ 14 

Zoysia japonica 

‘El Toro’ 57 

10

ACCEPTANCES 


ACCEPTANCES 

The following varieties are under provisional protection 

from the date of acceptance. 


Kangaroo Paw 

‘White Satin’ 

Application No: 2000/119 Accepted: 28 April, 2000. 

Applicant: Terry John Prendergast and Susan Gae 

Prendergast, Alstonville, NSW. 


Kangaroo Paw 

‘GALPM1’ 

Application No: 2000/028 Accepted: 25 May, 2000. 

Applicant: Sunregal Holdings Pty Ltd for the Australian 

Flora Unit Trust T/A Boutique Australian Flora, 

Wanneroo, WA. 


Flamingo Lily 

‘Gemini’ 


Applicant: Twyford International, Inc. 

Agent: Yates Botanicals Pty Ltd, Somersby, NSW. 

‘Northstar’ 


Applicant: Twyford International, Inc. 



Brachyscome 

‘Mauve Mystique’ 


Applicant: Pacific Plant Development Pty Ltd, Buxton, 

NSW. 


Canola 

‘TM4’ 

Application No: 1999/344 Accepted: 20 June, 2000. 

Applicant: Agriculture Victoria Services Pty Ltd and 

Grains Research and Development Corporation. 

Agent: Ag-Seed Research Pty Ltd, Horsham, VIC. 

‘TM8’ 


Applicant: Agriculture Victoria Services Pty Ltd and 

Grains Research and Development Corporation. 

Agent: Ag-Seed Research Pty Ltd, Horsham, VIC. 


Camellia 

‘Pardonna’ 


Applicant: RJ Cherry, Kulnura, NSW. 

‘Parillumination’ 



‘Parjanell’ 



‘Parsandra’ 



‘Parsylvia’ 




Geraldton Wax, Waxflower 

‘GALCP1’ 




Wanneroo, WA. 

Codiaeum mora 

Croton 

‘Zulu’ 


Applicant: Futura Promotions Pty Ltd, Wellington Point, 

QLD. 


Cabbage Tree 

‘Red Fountain’ 


Applicant: Mark C Jury. 

Agent: Anthony Tesselaar Plants Pty Ltd, Silvan, VIC. 


False Feather 

‘Lemon Squash’ 


Applicant: The Shadehouse Nursery, Blackstone, QLD. 

‘Lois’ 


Applicant: Carolynn Milne, Alexandra Hills, QLD. 


Purple Coneflower 

‘Kim’s Knee High’ 


Applicant: Kim Hawks. 

Agent: Plant Growers Australia, Wonga Park, VIC. 


Strawberry 

‘QHI Earlibelle’ 


Applicant: The State of Queensland through its 

Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, QLD. 

11


‘QHI Earliblush’ 




‘QHI Earlimist’ 




Glycine max 

Soybean 

‘Jabiru’ 





Grevillea 

‘Birdsong’ 


Applicant: Ian and Linda Townsend, Diddillibah, QLD. 

Grevillea preissii x Grevillea fililoba 

Grevillea 

‘Ellabella’ 


Applicant: George Lullfitz, Wanneroo, WA. 


Barley 

‘Lofty Nijo’ 


Applicant: Sapporo Breweries Limited. 

Agent: Luminis Pty Ltd, Adelaide, SA. 


Lavender 

‘Miss Katherine’ 


Applicant: Norfolk Lavender Ltd. 

Agent: Plants Management Australia Pty Ltd, Warragul, 

VIC. 


Tea Tree 

‘Emily NAO’ 


Applicant: Geoffrey Wallace Watson. 

Agent: Redlands Nursery Pty Ltd, Redland Bay, QLD. 

‘Joy’ 




‘Martin’ 




‘Naoko’ 





Leucospermum 

‘LS90-4A-0’ 

Application No: 2000/139 Accepted: 8 May, 2000. 

Applicant: Proteaflora Enterprises Pty Ltd, Monbulk, 

VIC. 


Apple 

‘MC 38’ 


Applicant: Allan McLean, Harcour North, VIC. 


Mango 

‘Honey Gem’ 


Applicant: AD & ID Leighton, Mareeba, QLD. 


Lucerne 

‘Alpha Express’ 


Applicant: Abi Alfalfa Inc. 

Agent: Seedco Australia Co-operative Limited, Hilton, 

SA. 


New Zealand Christmas Tree 

‘Wee Willy Winkie’ 


Applicant: Naturally Native New Zealand Plants Ltd. 

Agent: Wyvee Horticultural Services, Lilydale, VIC. 


Navy Bean 

‘Hyperno’ 



Department of Primary Industries Brisbane, QLD and 

Grains Research and Development Corporation, Barton, 

ACT. 


Lacy Tree Philodendron 

‘P2’ 


Applicant: Oglesby Plants International Inc. 


12

ACCEPTANCES 


Pisum sativum 

Field Pea 

‘Morgan PSE 23’ 


Applicant: Department of Agriculture for and on behalf 

of the State of New South Wales and Grains Research & 

Development Corporation. 

Agent: Hart Bros Seeds Pty Ltd, Junee, NSW. 


Barren’s Regelia 

‘GALRV1’ 




Wanneroo, WA. 


Paper Daisy, Native Daisy 

‘Southern Stars’ 


Applicant: Pacific Plant Development Pty Ltd, Buxton, 

NSW. 


Azalea 

‘Bina’ 


Applicant: Karl Glaser. 

Agent: Rodger Max Davidson, Galston, NSW. 

‘Jory’ 


Applicant: Karl Glaser. 

Agent: Rodger Max Davidson, Galston, NSW. 


Vireya Rhododendron 

‘Thai Prince’ 


Applicant: Sylvia Saperstein, Mullumbimby, NSW. 

Rosa hybrid 

Rose 

‘Auswill’ 


Applicant: David Austin Roses Ltd. 

Agent: Siebler Publishing Services, Hartwell, VIC. 

‘Internatro’ 


Applicant: Interplant B.V. 

Agent: Grandiflora Nurseries Pty Ltd, Cranbourne, VIC. 

‘Interpachy’ 


Applicant: Interplant B.V. 


‘Prebian Candy’ 


Applicant: Prego Royalty BV. 


‘Selcoulomb’ 


Applicant: TERRA NIGRA Holding B.V. 



Sugar Cane 

‘89H157’ 


Applicant: Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, 

Indooroopilly, QLD. 

‘Tellus’ 


Applicant: CSR Ltd. 

Agent: Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations (BSES), 

Indooroopilly, QLD. 


Pink Soap Wart 

‘Fairy Floss’ 


Applicant: WYVEE Horticultural Services Pty Ltd, 

Lilydale, VIC. 


Zygocactus 

‘Millennium Fantasy’ 


Applicant: Weech Enterprises Inc. 

Agent: Brindley’s Nurseries, Coffs Harbour, NSW. 

Serruria florida x Serruria rosea 

Serruria 

‘Carmen’ 


Applicant: Agricultural Research Council. 

Agent: Proteaflora Enterprises Pty Ltd, Monbulk, VIC. 

Telopea speciossissima x Telopea oreades 

Waratah 

‘T90-1-0-1’ 


Applicant: Proteaflora Enterprises Pty Ltd, Monbulk, 

VIC. 


Wheat 

‘JM73’ 



of the State of New South Wales, Orange, NSW. 

13


‘Kukri’ 


Applicant: Luminis Pty Ltd Adelaide, SA and Grains 

Research and Development Corporation, Barton, ACT. 

‘Yitpi’ 


Applicant: Luminis Pty Ltd Adelaide, SA and Grains 



Grape 

‘Sugrathirteen’ 


Applicant: Sun World International, Inc. 

Agent: FB Rice & Co, Balmain, NSW. 

‘Sugratwelve’ 

Application No: 2000/164 Accepted: 13 June, 2000. 

Applicant: Sun World International, Inc. 

Agent: FB Rice & Co, Balmain, NSW. 

xTriticosecale 

Triticale 

‘Tickit’ 


Applicant: Luminis Pty Ltd Adelaide, SA. and Grains 



Ginger 

‘Buderim Bold’ 




VARIETY DESCRIPTIONS 

Key to definitions/symbols/words used in the detailed 

descriptions 

* = Variety used as comparator 

Agent = Australian agent acting on behalf of an 

applicant (usually where application is 

from overseas). 

ca. = about 

DMRT = Duncan’s Multiple Range Test 

DUS = Distinctiveness, Uniformity and 

Stability 

Hyphened = A hyphen (-) between two different 

colours 

colours (eg. greyed-green) designates an 

intermediate colour between those two 

colours, where possible the RHS colour 

chart reference is also given. 

LSD = Least Significant Difference 

LSD/sig = The numerical value for the LSD (at 

P≤0.01) is in the first column and the 

level of significance between the 

candidate and the relevant comparator in 

subsequent columns 

PVJ = Plant Varieties Journal 

n/a = Not available 

ns = Not significant 

RHS = Royal Horticultural Society Colour 

Chart (Chip Number). The year 

following RHS indicates the edition. 

std deviation = Standard deviation of the sample 

syn = synonym 

UPOV = International Union for the Protection of 

New Plant Varieties 

+ = When used in conjunction with an RHS 

colour, ‘+’ indicates a notional extension 

of a colour series when a precise match 

can not be made. It is most commonly 

used when the adjacent colour chip(s) are 

of a different sequence 

# = Values followed by the same letter are 

not significantly different at P≤0.01 

Origin = Unless otherwise stated the female parent 

of the cross precedes the male parent 

S-N-K test = Student-Newman-Keuls test 

A = Variety(s) for which PBR has been 

granted 

Avena sativa 

Oat 

‘Quoll’ 

Application No: 98/185 Accepted: 14 Oct 1998. 

Applicant: Minister for Primary Industries, Natural 

Resources and Regional Development, Adelaide, SA and 


ACT. 

14 

Characteristics (Table 1, Figure 42) Plant: habit erect, 

length short, medium maturing, spring type. Stem: hairiness 

of uppermost node present, intensity weak. Leaf: lower 

leaves hairiness of sheaths weak, hairiness of margins of 

leaf below flag leaf weak, frequency of plants with recurved 

flag leaves low, predominant colour green (RHS 137B, 

1995). Inflorescence: panicle length long, orientation of 

branches equilateral, attitude of branches horizontal, 

attitude of spikelets pendulous, glaucosity of glumes 

medium, length of glumes medium/long. Seed: grain colour

DESCRIPTIONS 


yellow, glaucosity of lemma of primary grain absent, 

hairiness of base of primary grain very strong. 

Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination: seed parent 

MIOLRP-86-3 x pollen parent ‘Bandicoot’. The seed parent 

was characterised by its tall plant type. The pollen parent 

was characterised by its dwarf plant type and hull-less seed. 

Hybridisation took place at the Northfield Research 

Laboratories, South Australia in 1987. From this cross, 

panicles were selected from F 3 plots at Turretfield Research 

Centre (near Rosedale, SA) in 1988. Selection number 

OX87; 080-2 was chosen in 1993 after six cycles of 

selection on the basis of grain yield, feed grain quality, plant 

type, and disease resistance. Selection criteria: husked seed, 

high grain yield, and high protein, fat, digestibility and 

metabolisable energy, dwarf plant type, and stem rust, leaf 

rust and septoria resistance. Propagation: by seed. Breeder: 

Dr. Andrew Barr and the Oat Breeding Team of the South 

Australian Research and Development Institute, Waite 

Campus, Urrbrae, SA. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Echidna’, ‘Potoroo’, ‘Dalyup’ 

and ‘Euro’ were chosen for the comparative trial as these 

are similar varieties of common knowledge. ‘Echidna’, 

‘Potoroo’ and ‘Dalyup’ were chosen for their dwarf plant 

type and feed grain quality. ‘Euro’ was chosen as a tall plant 

type, milling quality comparator. The parents were not 

considered for the trial because ‘Quoll’ is clearly 

distinguishable from the seed parent by its dwarf plant type 

(MIOLRP-86-3 is a tall plant type) and from the pollen 

parent by its husked seed (‘Bandicoot’ is hull-less). 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Echidna’, ‘Potoroo’, 

‘Dalyup’, ‘Euro’. Location: Turretfield Research Centre, 

Rosedale, SA (Latitude 34º5’ Longitude 138º8’, elevation 

140m), winter/spring 1999. Conditions: trial conducted in 

the field, sown on the 7th July, fertiliser, herbicides and 

insecticides applied as required. Trial design: three 

replicates of each variety sown in plots 10m by 1.5m 

arranged in a randomised block design. Measurements: 

from twenty plants at random. One sample per plant. 


No prior applications. First sold in Australia in May 1998. 

Description: Suzanne Hoppo, SARDI, Adelaide, SA. 

Table 1 Avena varieties 

‘Quoll’ *‘Echidna’ *‘Potoroo’ *‘Dalyup’ *‘Euro’ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

NUMBER OF HAIRS AT THE BASE OF THE PRIMARY GRAIN 

mean 18.9 2.5 2.6 1.3 3.7 

std deviation 4.9 2.0 1.7 1.4 3.7 

LSD/sig 1.5 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLANT GROWTH HABIT 

intermediate intermediate intermediate intermediate semi-erect 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HAIRINESS OF SHEATHS OF LOWEST LEAVES 

weak weak absent/weak absent/weak weak 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HAIRINESS OF MARGINS OF LEAF BLADE BELOW FLAG LEAF 

weak weak weak absent/weak weak 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

FREQUENCY OF PLANTS WITH RECURVED FLAG LEAVES 

low medium medium medium medium 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INTENSITY OF HAIRINESS OF UPPERMOST NODE OF STEM 

weak strong/medium weak strong weak/medium 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PANICLE ATTITUDE OF BRANCHES 

horizontal semi-erect semi-erect semi-erect semi-erect 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GLAUCOSITY OF GLUMES 

medium medium weak weak weak 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LENGTH OF GLUMES 

medium/long medium medium short medium 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLANT LENGTH 

short very short short very short medium 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PANICLE LENGTH 

long short/medium medium/long short medium 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HAIRINESS OF BASE OF PRIMARY GRAIN 

very strong weak weak absent/very weak medium 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15



Philippine Violet, Barleria 

‘Jetstreak’ 

Application No: 2000/055 Accepted: 22 Mar, 2000. 

Applicant: Hilder’s Nursery, Upperstone via Ingham, 

QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 2 Figure 18) Plant: semi-erect, softwooded 

shrub. Stem: longitudinally ridged and bearing 

short bristly hairs, top, mean 2nd and 3rd internode lengths 

43.93mm, 50.17 and 58.60 respectively. Leaf: opposite, 

decussate, length mean 64.17mm, width 19.27mm, shape 

ovate – lanceolate, margin entire, both surfaces bearing 

short bristly hairs. Inflorescence: 2 to 4 flowers sessile in 

the leaf axils, each bud enclosed within four bracts, the two 

outer ones large with a fringe of strong bristly hairs, the 

inner ones small, with a few small hairs. Flower: tubular 

mean length 47.27mm with four upper lobes and one lower 

lobe, each lobe with a central violet stripe (RHS 84A) and 

white margins (RHS 155C). 

Origin and Breeding Spontaneous mutation: in a batch of 

cuttings of common violet flowered (RHS 83C) form at 

Hilder’s Nursery at Upper Stone via Ingham, QLD in 1995. 

It has been propagated through 4 generations and remained 

stable. Selection criteria: the unusual striped violet and 

white flowers. Propagation: by cuttings. Breeder: R and G 

Hilder. 

Choice of Comparator The common form of Barleria 

cristata from which this mutant arose was chosen because 

it is the closest variety of common knowledge. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: common form of Barleria 

cristata. Location Hilders Nursery, Upper Stone QLD. Nov. 

1997 – April, 2000. Conditions: trial conducted in the open 

on weedmat, plants propagated from cuttings, rooted 

cuttings potted into 140mm pots, nutrition supplied with 

slow release fertiliser, pest and disease treatments applied as 

required. Trial design: 30 plants of each variety arranged in 

3 replicated randomised blocks. Measurements: from all 

trial plants. 

Prior Applications and Sales: Nil. 

Description: David Hockings, Maleny, QLD. 

Table 2 Barleria varieties 

‘Jetstreak’ *Barleria 

cristata 

common form 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT HEIGHT (mm) 

mean 736.33 636.83 

std deviation 69.62 64.67 

LSD/sig 41.46 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

BRACT LENGTH (mm) 

mean 21.53 23.47 


LSD/sig. 0.86 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER COLOUR (RHS) 

striped with Violet (83C) 

violet central stripe 

(84A) 

with white margin 

(155C) 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER WIDTH (mm) 

mean 45.27 47.40 


LSD/sig 1.14 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


Bougainvillea 

‘Jazzi’ 

Application No: 1999/059 Accepted: 12 Apr 1999. 

Applicant: Jan & Peter Iredell, Moggill, QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 3, Figure 7) Plant: small to medium 

shrubby vine. Stem: glabrous, new stems gold coloured, 

axillary thorns. Thorns: medium and strong. Leaf: size 

variable, length 70-80mm, width 36-60mm, broadly ovate 

with acute apex and shortly cunate base, petioles mediumlong, 

main colour green (RHS 137A) with a yellow green 

(RHS 147B) irregular central patch. Bract: size medium to 

large, rounded, ruffled, length 38-44mm, width 30-45mm, 

initial colour of bract (in full sun) at 6mm red (RHS 46A), 

bract at 20mm red (RHS 53B), mature bract red (RHS 61B) 

bract finally red (RHS 63B). Flower: creamy white, 

diameter 9mm, stamens visible, floral tube slender, 20mm 

long, same colour as bract. (Note: all RHS colour chart 

numbers refer to 1986 edition.) 

Origin and Breeding Spontaneous mutation: originated as 

a bud-sport on Bougainvillea ‘Hot Chilli’ at applicant’s 

property. The sport was characterised by a yellow green 

patch at the centre of the leaves whereas in the parental 

variety such variegation was absent. The mutated shoot was 

isolated and propagated vegetatively through several 

generations to confirm the uniformity and stability of the 

selection. Selection criteria: bract colour and size, plants 

moderate growth habit and very heavy flowering habit. 

Propagation: by cuttings. Breeder: Jan Iredell, Moggill, 

QLD. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Mrs Butt’ and ‘Hot Chilli’ were 

included in the trial as these are the most similar variety of 

common knowledge on the basis of bract colour. ‘Hot 

Chilli’ is also the parental variety from where the candidate 

variety was originated. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Mrs Butt’, ‘Hot Chilli’. 

Location: 50 Sugars Rd, Moggill, QLD, Mar 1999-Apr 

2000. Conditions: plants grown in soil-less potting media in 

200mm pots, fertilised with 5g/l Osmocote® 5-6month 

release, grown in full sun. Normal cultural practices with 

the exception of pruning were carried out during the trial. 

Trial design: 8 plants of each arranged in a completely 

randomised design. Measurements: from all trial plants. 


First sale in Australia in Sep 1999. 

Description: Jan Iredell, Moggill, QLD. 

16



Table 3 Bougainvillea varieties 

‘Jazzi’ *‘Mrs Butt’ *‘Hot Chilli’ 

____________________________________________________ 

BRACT COLOUR (RHS, 1986) 

6mm stage red greyed-purple red 

(46A) (185A) (46A) 

20mm stage red red red 

(53B) (46A) (53A) 

mature stage red-purple red red-purple 

(61B) (53C) (61B) 

final stage red-purple red red-purple 

(63C) (53D) (63C) 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF VARIEGATION (RHS, 1986) 

present absent absent 

main colour green (137A) 

central patch yellow- green 

colour (147B) 

____________________________________________________ 

‘Jellibene’ 



Characteristics (Table 4, Figure 8) Plant: small with grey 

green variegated foliage. Stem: smooth with axillary thorns. 

Thorns: small and fine. Leaf: variable in size and shape, 

length 60-70mm, width 38-42mm, colour grey green (RHS 

191A), margins quite irregular and creamy white (RHS 

158A), petioles long. Bracts: small, rounded, ruffled, with 

incomplete flowers, length 26-29mm, width 22-25mm, 

colour light red (RHS 43B) through to red purple (RHS 

67A). Flower: incomplete with stamens extruded, 

occasionally a complete flower, small pinkish cream with 

stamens visible, floral tube swollen at base, 6-8mm long, 

same colour as bract. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers 

refer to 1986 edition.) 


a bud-sport on Bougainvillea ‘Scarlet Queen’ at applicant’s 

property. The sport was characterised by variegated leaves 

whereas the parental variety lacks such variegation. The 

mutated shoot was isolated and propagated vegetatively 

through several generations to confirm the uniformity and 

stability of the selection. Selection criteria: small compact 

growth habit, variegated foliage and clear red bract colour. 


QLD. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Scarlet Queen’ and ‘Raspberry 

Ice’ were included in the trial as these are the most similar 

variety of common knowledge on the basis of bract colour. 

‘Scarlet Queen’ is also the parental variety from where the 

candidate variety was originated. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Scarlet Queen’, 

‘Raspberry Ice’. Location: 50 Sugars Rd, Moggill, QLD, 

Mar 1999-Apr 2000. Conditions: plants grown in soil-less 

potting media in 200mm pots, fertilised with 5g/l 

Osmocote® 4-5month and 9-12 month slow release 

fertiliser, grown in full sun. Normal cultural practices with 




Prior Applications and Sales Nil. 

Description: Jan Iredell, Moggill. QLD. 


‘Jellibene’ *‘Scarlet *‘Raspberry 

Queen’ Ice’ 

____________________________________________________ 



(43A) (43A) (45B) 


(43A) (43A) (53C) 

mature stage red red red-purple 

(47A) (47A) (74A) 

final stage red-purple red-purple red-purple 

(67A) (67A) (74B) 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF VARIEGATION (RHS, 1986) 

present absent present 

main colour greyed-green n/a greyed-green 

(191A) 

(189A) 

margin colour yellow-white n/a greyed-yellow 

(158A) 

(160A) 

____________________________________________________ 

‘Marlu’ 



Characteristics (Table 5, Figure 9) Plant: small to medium 

vine with compact and bushy habit. Stem: slightly 

pubescent with axillary thorns. Leaf: ovate, narrowing at 

base and apex, size variable, length 70-80mm, width 35- 

48mm, colour dull dark green (RHS 87A-B), glabrous. 

Bract: size medium, reflexed, length 40mm, width 28- 

30mm, margins undulate, colour variable from almost white 

(RHS 155D) through pale mauve in irregular patterns on 

each bract to bright mauve (RHS 75A-C to 87B-C). Flower: 

prominent, cream, diameter 7mm, stamens visible, floral 

tube slender, slightly inflated at base, 23mm long, green 

with mauve tinge. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers 



Bougainvillea ‘White Cascade’ x pollen parent 

Bougainvillea ‘Nonya’ A at applicant’s property. The seed 

parent was characterised by white bract colour and the 

pollen parent was characterised by bright purple bract 

colour. From this cross, one seedling was selected with 

variable bract colour with patches of white through purple. 

It was propagated through several generations to confirm 

the uniformity and stability of the selection. Selection 

criteria: bract colour and compact growth habit. 


QLD. 

17


Choice of Comparators ‘Nonya’ A and ‘Krishna’ A were 


common knowledge on the basis of bract colour. ‘Nonya’ A 

is also the pollen variety of the candidate variety. The seed 

parent ‘White Cascade’ was excluded because of it is 

clearly distinguishable white bract colour. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Nonya’ A and 

‘Krishna’ A . Location: 50 Sugars Rd, Moggill, QLD, Aug 

1999-Apr 2000. Conditions: plants grown in soil-less 


Osmocote® 4-5 month and 9-12 month slow release 








‘Marlu’ *‘Nonya’ A *‘Krishna’ A 

____________________________________________________ 


8mm stage white with purple purple 

palest mauve (78B) (78B) 

20mm stage white with purple-violet purple 

purple (81B) (78A) 

(75A-C) 

mature stage violet palest purple-violet purple 

at base (82A) (78B) 

(87B-C) 

final stage violet purple-violet purple 

87C 81D 78D 

____________________________________________________ 

‘Siggi’ 



Characteristics (Table 6, Figure 10) Plant: small to 

medium vine with compact bushy habit. Stem: glabrous, 

young stems golden green, with axillary thorns. Thorns: 

medium long, slightly curved. Leaf: size variable, length 

72mm-90mm, width 58mm-68mm, broadly ovate with 

acute apex and shortly cuneate base, petioles medium-long, 

main colour green (RHS 137A) with a yellow green (RHS 

147B) irregular central patch. Bract: size medium to large, 

rounded, ruffled, initial colour of bract (in full sun) at 8mm 

greyed-orange (RHS 165B), bract at 20mm greyed-orange 

(RHS 163A), mature bract yellow-orange (RHS 22A) bract 

finally greyed-orange (RHS 170B). Flower: cream, stamens 

visible, diameter 6mm, floral tube 20mm long, slender, 

green-gold. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 

1986 edition.) 


a bud-sport on Bougainvillea ‘Barleysugar’ at applicant’s 

property. The sport was characterised by slightly variegated 

leaves whereas in the parental variety such variegation is 

absent. The mutated shoot was isolated and propagated 

vegetatively through several generations to confirm the 

uniformity and stability of the selection. Selection criteria: 

compact growth habit, prolific and dense flowering habit, 

bract colour. Propagation: by cuttings. Breeder: Jan Iredell, 

Moggill, QLD. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Barleysugar’ and ‘Golden Tango’ 

were included in the trial as these are the most similar 

variety of common knowledge on the basis of bract colour. 

‘Barleysugar’ is also the parental variety from where the 

candidate variety was originated. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Barleysugar’, ‘Golden 

Tango’. Location: 50 Sugars Rd, Moggill, QLD, Aug 1999- 

Apr 2000. Conditions: plants grown in soil-less potting 

media in 200mm pots, fertilised with 5g/l Osmocote® 4-5 

month and 9-12 month slow release fertiliser, grown in full 

sun. Normal cultural practices with the exception of pruning 

were carried out during the trial. Trial design: 8 plants of 

each arranged in a completely randomised design. 

Measurements: from all trial plants. 


Description: Jan Iredell, Moggill, QLD. 


‘Siggi’ *‘Barleysugar’ *‘Golden 

Tango’ 

____________________________________________________ 


6mm stage greyed-orange greyed-orange greyed-orange 

(165B) (165B) (163A) 


(163A) (163A) (163B) 

mature stage yellow-orange yellow-orange greyed-yellow 

(22A) (22A) (162A) 

final stage greyed-orange greyed-orange greyed-yellow 

170D 170D 162C 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF VARIEGATION 

present absent absent 

main colour green (137A) n/a n/a 

central patch yellow-green 

colour (147B) 

____________________________________________________ 

‘Toffi’ 




medium with bushy and compact growth habit. Stem: thin, 

golden colour in new growth with axillary thorns. Thorns: 

fine, slightly curved. Leaf: distorted, twisted bright green 

(RHS 137A) with central lighter patch, petiole long. Bract: 

ruffled, reflexed, ovate, medium size, some bracts distorted, 

length 40-42mm, width 28-30mm, greyed- orange (RHS 

171A) through to red (RHS 51A). Flower: cream, diameter 

5mm, stamens not visible, floral tube slender, 20mm long, 

same colour as bract. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers 


18




a bud-sport on Bougainvillea ‘Butterscotch’ at applicant’s 

property. The sport was characterised by red bract colour 

whereas the parental variety has orange bracts. The mutated 

shoot was isolated and propagated vegetatively through 

several generations to confirm the uniformity and stability 

of the selection. Selection criteria: compact growth habit 

and brilliant bract colour. Propagation: by cuttings. Breeder: 

Jan Iredell, Moggill, QLD. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Sundance’ and ‘Bokay’ were 


common knowledge. The parental variety ‘Butterscotch’ 

was excluded on the basis of orange bract colour. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Sundance’, ‘Bokay’. 

Location: 50 Sugars Rd, Moggill, QLD, Mar 1999-Apr 

2000. Conditions: plants grown in soil-less potting media in 

200mm pots, fertilised with 5g/l Osmocote® 4-5month and 

9-12 month slow release fertiliser, grown in full sun. 

Normal cultural practices with the exception of pruning 

were carried out during the trial. Trial design: 8 plants of 

each arranged in a completely randomised design. 

Measurements: from all trial plants. 




‘Toffi’ *‘Sundance’ *‘Bokay’ 

____________________________________________________ 



(171A) (170B) (171A) 

20mm stage orange-red orange-red red-purple 

(34B) (31A) (59C) 

mature stage red orange-red red-purple 

(47B) (34C-B) (70B) 

final stage red greyed-red red-purple 

(51A) (180C) (70C) 

____________________________________________________ 

‘Tosca’ 




medium shrubby vine, compact and bushy. Stem: new 

growth stripe cream and green, with axillary thorns. Thorns: 

medium, fine. Leaf: size variable, length 52-63mm, width 

45-55mm, colour dull dark green (RHS 137A), ovate with 

broad base and acute apex, petiole medium, central lighter 

green patch in each leaf. Bract: size small to medium, not 

ruffles but has distinctive blotchy look giving the 

appearance of multi-toned flower heads (RHS 63B). 

Flower: small, cream, reflexed, stamens not visible, floral 

tube slender, pale green with pink tinge. (Note: all RHS 

colour chart numbers refer to 1986 edition.) 


a bud-sport on Bougainvillea ‘Red Dwarf’ at applicant’s 

property. The sport was characterised by blotchy pink bracts 

with slightly variegated leaves whereas in the parental 

variety lacks such characteristics. The mutated shoot was 

isolated and propagated vegetatively through several 

generations to confirm the uniformity and stability of the 

selection. Selection criteria: growth habit and bract colour. 


QLD. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Red Dwarf’ and ‘Blushing 

Beauty’ were included in the trial as these are the most 

similar variety of common knowledge on the basis of bract 

colour. ‘Red Dwarf’ is also the parental variety from where 

the candidate variety was originated. Initially ‘Nonya’ A 

was considered for the trial but later was excluded as it lacks 

blotchy pink bract colour. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Red Dwarf’ and 

‘Blushing Beauty’. Location: 50 Sugars Rd, Moggill, QLD, 

Aug 1999-Apr 2000. Conditions: plants grown in soil-less 


Osmocote® 4-5 month and 9-12 month slow release 








‘Tosca’ *‘Red *‘Blushing 

Dwarf’ Beauty’ 

____________________________________________________ 


8mm stage cream with red-purple pale with pink 

overal pink (72B) tips 

blotches 

20mm stage red-purple red-purple red-purple 

(63B) (72B) (63B-C) 

mature stage blotching red-purple red-purple 

red-purple (72B) (74C) 

(63B) 

final stage blotching red-purple red-purple 

red-purple 72C 74C 

(63B) 

____________________________________________________ 


Paper Daisy 

‘Wanetta Sunshine’ 

Application No: 2000/041 Accepted: 16th March, 2000. 

Applicant: David & Olive Hockings 

Characteristics (Table 9, Figure 17) Plant: herbaceous 

perennial with compact radical growth. Stems very short 

and crowded with leaves. Leaf: oblanceolate with leaf blade 

19


running down on to the stem, (mean length 148.33mm 

width 32.06mm). Flower stems: tall (mean 428.66mm) with 

branching absent or very weak and from the base. Flower: 

single flower per stem, large (mean 64.2mm), number of 

whorls of bracts: many (mean 21.86), colour: inner bracts 

yellow (RHS 5A – 2B), outer bracts greyed orange (RHS 

164C – 165D), open disc yellow-orange (RHS 17A). 

Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination: the original 

pollen transfer from a wild form of Bracteantha bracteata 

to Bracteantha ‘Blackfellows Gap’ was made in 1994. In 

1995 and 1996 these hybrids open pollinated with 

commercially available Bracteantha hybrids and the best 

selected for further planting and further selected in 1998. 

Selection criteria: radical vegetative growth and large single 

flowers per stem. Propagation: tissue culture. Breeder: F.D. 

Hockings. 

Choice of Comparator The original female parent 

‘Blackfellows Gap’ was chosen because it has similar 

growth and flowering characteristics. The other parents, B. 

bracteata and commercially available B. bracteantha 

hybrids, are tall and lanky with branched flowering stems at 

the apex. They also tend to be much less persistent and 

therefore, were excluded. 

Comparative Trial Comparator ‘Blackfellows Gap’. 

Location: Hockings Nursery, Maleny, QLD. Jun 1999 – Feb 

2000. Conditions: trial conducted in the open on weedmat 

covered gravel beds. Plants of the species propagated from 

cuttings, ‘Wanetta Sunshine’ propagated from tissue, rooted 

cuttings potted into 140mm pots. Nutrition supplied with 

slow release fertiliser and pest/disease treatments applied as 

required. Trial design: 30 plants of each variety arranged in 

3 replicated randomised blocks. Measurements: from all 

trial plants. 

Prior Application and Sales: Nil. 


Table 9 Bracteantha varieties 

‘Wanetta 

Sunshine’ 

*‘Blackfellows 

Gap’ 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH (mm) 

mean 148.33 168.87 


LSD/sig 14.05 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF WIDTH (mm) 

mean 32.07 20.33 


LSD/sig 3.26 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

INFLORESCENCE HEIGHT (mm) 

mean 428.67 530.67 


LSD/sig 44.64 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER WIDTH (mm) 

mean 64.20 53.33 


LSD/sig 4.40 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

NUMBER OF RINGS OF BRACTS 

mean 21.87 9.73 

std deviation 2.13 1.16 

LSD/sig 1.55 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


Variegated Croton 

‘Grubell’ syn Bell 


Applicant: Andre de Gruyter B.V., Rockanje, The 

Netherlands. 

Agent: Futura Promotions Pty Ltd, Wellington Point, 

QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 10, Figure 29) Plant: habit upright 

with abundant basal branches branching off at tips leading 

to a vase shape, compact, short but wide (average 24.45cm 

high, 48.15cm wide), height to width ratio of 0.51 

indicating width is twice the height, strong lateral growth 

due to the tendency for basal branching and tip branching. 

Stem: main stem branches at base, side stems arise at about 

30 degrees to main stem and tend to grow upwards, tips of 

main and side branches branch out again at tips, internodes 

very short (average 0.65cm) but variable, young stem light 

greyish green, mature stem colour same as leaf colour – 

mainly red and yellow combinations. Leaf: petiole short 

(average 2.83cm) but variable, various mixtures of yellow 

(RHS 9B –9D) and red (RHS 46A – 50B), mid rib not 

pronounced, masked by same coloured strip as the petiole, 

secondary veins and leaf margins not pronounced, blade 

size variable with long basal leaves and short tip leaves, 

average basal blade size 22.42cm x 3.33cm, L/B ratio of 

6.80, pronounced strip along the mid rib either red, yellow 

or combination is predominant colour, emerging leaves 

yellow green, darken with maturity into primary colour 

upper surface green (darker then RHS 139A), lower surface 

yellow green (RHS 146A), secondary colour of mid rib, and 

spots predominant colours – various mixtures of yellow 

(RHS 9B –9D) and red (RHS 46A – 50B), lower surfaces 

one or two shades lighter than upper surfaces, shape long 

narrow basal leaves but shorter tip leaves with a very unique 

and distinct “bell” shape appendage and multi-coloured 

foliage. (Note: all RHS colour chart number refers to 1995 

edition) 

Origin and Breeding Open pollination followed by 

seedling selection: arose as a seedling selection from 

crossing of non-commercial varieties of Codiaeum in 1992 

in an ongoing breeding program in The Netherlands. The 

seedling was identified as more compact, dense, very 

attractive leaves with various combinations of red and 

yellow as secondary colours, very unique and distinct 

“bells” when compared with any of the known varieties. It 

was vegetatively propagated through several generations to 

confirm uniformity and stability. Selection criteria: leaves 

with unique and distinct “bells”, attractive growth habit and 

foliage colour when compared to any existing varieties. 

Propagation: vegetatively propagated through cuttings. 

Breeder: Andre de Gruyter B.V., Rockanje, The 

Netherlands. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Reedii’ was chosen as the sole 

comparator because it is the most similar variety of 

20



common knowledge on the basis of foliage colour but 

without any “bells”. Only other variety known with “bells” 

is ‘Purple Bell’ was excluded from the trial because it is a 

uni-coloured variety while the candidate is multi-coloured. 

The parents were excluded because they are noncommercial 

breeding lines within the breeding program. No 

other similar varieties of common knowledge have been 

identified. 

Comparative Trials Comparator: ‘Reedii’. Location: 

Wellington Point, QLD, Aug 1999 to Apr 2000. Conditions: 

trial conducted in shadehouse, plants propagated from 

cuttings (3/9/99) and potted into 140mm pots with soilless 

media (peat and bark based), nutrition maintained with 

controlled release fertilisers, pest and disease management 

applied as required. Trial design: 30 pots of each variety 

arranged in a completely randomised design. 

Measurements: from 20 plants at random, longest basal 

leaves and basal internodes were measured, abnormal 

leaves or internodes were discarded, plant height was taken 

from top of pot to tip. 


Country Year Current Status Name Applied 

The Netherlands 1991 Granted ‘Grubell’ 

First sold in The Netherlands in May 1995 as ‘Golden 

Bell’. First Australian sales Nil. 

Description: Deo Singh, Ornatec Pty Ltd, QLD. 

Table 10 Codiaeum varieties 

‘Grubell’ *‘Reedii’ 

syn Sunset Bell 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT HEIGHT (cm) 

mean 24.45 26.95 


LSD/sig 2.28 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT WIDTH (cm) 

mean 48.15 71.85 


LSD/sig 3.58 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

INTERNODE LENGTH (cm) 

mean 0.65 1.23 


LSD/sig 0.16 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

PETIOLE LENGTH (cm) 

mean 2.83 4.04 


LSD/sig 0.54 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF BLADE LENGTH (cm) 

mean 22.42 29.47 


LSD/sig 3.70 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF WIDTH (cm) 

mean 3.33 4.32 


LSD/sig 0.51 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

PRESENCE OF “BELL” SHAPED LEAVES 

present 

absent 

____________________________________________________ 


False Feather, Cuphea 

‘Karissa’ 

Application No: 1999 /003 Accepted: 21 Jan 1999. 

Applicant: Carolynn Milne, Capalaba, QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 11, Figure 30) Plant: small, 

evergreen, perennial shrub with semi-prostrate, slightly 

spreading growth habit, mean height 16.1cm, mean width 

26.5cm. Stem: light green ageing to brown on maturity, 

internodes short. Leaf: obovate to elliptical, mean length 

27mm, mean width 14mm, upper surface green (RHS 

137B), lower surface green (RHS 138B), basal leaves larger 

and more rounded than the leaves on the tips. Flower: large, 

mean diameter 12.6mm, emerging as purple (RHS 78B), 

fading through purple (RHS 78C), mature flower lighter 

purple (RHS 78D), floriferous, mean number of flowers per 

5cm circle 14.8, distribution of flowers peripheral. (Note: 

all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1995 edition). 


seedling selection: seed parent Cuphea ‘Louisa’ A . The seed 

parent is a selected mutation with variegated leaves and a 

small compact habit. A number of open-pollinated 

seedlings of ‘Louisa’ A were planted in planned breeding 

program at applicant’s nursery at Capalaba, QLD. Selection 

criteria: from this batch, ‘Karissa’ was selected on the basis 

of growth habit and flower size, flower colour and 

flowering habit. It also has non-variegated leaves while the 

parental variety has green leaves with white margins. 

Propagation: vegetatively through many generations to 

confirm uniformity and stability. ‘Karissa’ will be 

commercially propagated by cuttings from the stock plants. 

Breeder: Carolynn Milne, Carol’s Propagation, Capalaba, 

QLD. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Mad Hatter’ was selected as the 

comparator for this trial as it is the most similar variety of 

common knowledge on the basis of flower colour. 

‘Louisa’ A was also included in the trial because it is the 

seed parent of the candidate variety. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Mad Hatter’ and 

‘Louisa’ A . Location: Carol’s Propagation, Capalaba, QLD, 

Oct 1999 – Mar 2000. Conditions: trial conducted out 

doors, plants propagated from cuttings and potted into 

125mm pots with soilless media (peat and bark based), 

nutrition maintained with controlled release fertilisers, pest 

and disease management applied as required. Trial design: 

10 pots of each variety arranged in a completely 

randomised design. Measurements: from 10 plants at 

random, longest basal leaves were measured, plant height 

was taken from top of pot to tip, fully opened flowers were 

measured on plants. Shoot tip was taken from tips of side 

branches to tip of main branches. 



Description: Carolynn Milne, Carol’s Propagation, Capalaba, QLD. 

21


Table 11 Cuphea varieties 

‘Karissa’ *‘Louisa’ A *‘Mad Hatter’ 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 16.10 19.02 15.95 

std deviation 2.18 1.85 1.34 

LSD/sig 2.21 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 26.50 19.00 35.33 


LSD/sig 3.59 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO 

mean 0.61 1.01 0.46 

std Deviation 0.60 0.14 0.06 

LSD/sig 0.12 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.41 0.64 1.32 


LSD/sig 0.20 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH TO WIDTH RATIO 

mean 1.94 3.88 1.99 


LSD/sig 0.30 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF SHAPE 

obovate to lanceolate lanceolate 

elliptical 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF COLOUR (RHS, 1995) 

emerging upper green base colour green 

green 

137B 143A 143A 

emerging under green137b fringe yellow green 

137B 2D 143A 

mature upper green green green 

137B 143C 143A 

mature under green yellow green 

137B 2D 143A 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER DIAMETER (cm) 

mean 1.26 0.95 1.34 


LSD/sig 0.10 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER NUMBER (per 5cm circle) 

mean 14.80 3.20 4.60 


LSD/sig 2.61 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER COLOUR (RHS, 1995) 

new (central petal) 

purple 78B purple 78A purple 78A 

new (outside petal) 

purple 78C purple 78A purple 78A 

mature purple 78C purple 78A purple 78A 

____________________________________________________ 

SHOOT TIP LENGTH (cm) 

mean 5.60 1.95 7.54 


LSD/sig 0.80 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

Note: Plant measurements taken on 5-month old plants. Leaf 

measurements taken on the largest leaves. 

‘Little Hatter’ 

Application No: 1998/130 Accepted: 3 Aug 1998. 

Applicant: H. Eunice Nursery Inc., Hawaii, USA. 


QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 12, Figure 31) Plant: dwarf, 

compact, evergreen shrub with masses of flowers; habit 

semi-prostrate, abundant leading branches, side branches in 

abundance, about same size as leading branches, compact 

and profuse flowering, short but wide (average 11.70cm 

high, 24.30cm wide), height to width ratio of 0.48 

indicating width is twice the height, strong lateral growth 

due to the tendency for basal branching and secondary 

branching, flowers heavily on all branches, bigger basal 

leaves. Stem: heavy main and side branching, internodes 

very short but variable, young stem light greyish green, 

mature stem brown. Leaf: blade size variable with long 

basal leaves and short tip leaves, average basal blade size 

25.2mm x 11.6mm, L/B ratio of 2.19, shape ovate to 

elliptical, emerging and mature leaves green, upper surface 

(RHS 137A), lower surface (RHS 137B). Flower: heavy 

flowering, mean number of flowers per 5cm circle 8.8, 

mean diameter 10.6mm, colour emerges as purple (RHS 

78A) and fades through to lighter purple (RHS 78B-78C). 

(Note: all RHS colour chart number refers to 1995 edition). 

Origin and Breeding Spontaneous mutation: arose as a 

sport of ‘Little Lilac’ (also known as ‘Mad Hatter’ in 

Australia) at applicant’s property in Hawaii in 1996. The 

sport is dwarf, compact and profuse flowering throughout 

and not only peripheral flowering when compared with 

parental variety. It was vegetatively propagated through 

several generations and found to be stable and distinct from 

the parent. Selection criteria: dwarf, compact and profuse 

flowering. Propagation: vegetatively propagated through 

cuttings. Breeder: Roy Shigenaga, Hilo, Hawaii, USA. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Mad Hatter’ was chosen as one of 

the comparators because it is the parental variety and has 

some similarities with the candidate. ‘Karissa’ was chosen, 

as it is a similar variety of common knowledge. No other 


identified. 

Comparative Trials Comparators: ‘Mad Hatter’ and 

‘Karissa’. Location: Carol’s Propagation, Capalaba, QLD, 













No prior applications. First sold in the USA in Oct 1996. 


22




‘Little *‘Mad *‘Karissa’ 

Hatter’ Hatter’ 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 11.70 15.95 16.10 


LSD/sig 1.77 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 24.30 35.33 26.60 


LSD/sig 3.47 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.16 1.32 1.41 


LSD/sig 0.19 ns P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.06 1.34 1.26 


LSD/sig 0.18 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 8.80 4.60 14.80 


LSD/sig 2.62 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


emerging 78A 78A 78B 

mature 78B 78A 78C 

old 78C 78A 78C 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 3.06 1.95 7.54 


LSD/sig 0.86 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 



‘Lois’ 

Application No: 2000 /112 Accepted: 5 May 2000. 


Characteristics (Table 13, Figure 32) Plant: small, bushy, 

upright, evergreen, perennial shrub with very fine compact 

yellow foliage, mean height 22.1cm, mean width 32.3cm. 

Stem: red brown, internodes short. Leaf: small, lanceolate, 

mean length 27.9mm, mean width 9.8mm, colour of 

emerging leaves on upper surface yellow green (RHS 

144B), lower surface yellow green (RHS 144C), and on 

mature leaves green (RHS 137B). Flower: large, mean 

diameter 12.3mm, emerging centre petals purple (RHS 

78A), edge of petal red purple (RHS 74A). The overall 

colour of the flowers appears bright pink, fading only 

slightly on maturity, very floriferous, distribution of flowers 

even through out the bush. (Note all RHS colour chart 

numbers refer to 1995 edition). 







criteria: from this batch, ‘Lois’ was selected on the basis of 

compact growth habit, larger flower size and profusion. It 

also has non-variegated leaves while the parental variety has 

green leaves with white margins. Propagation: vegetatively 

through many generations to confirm uniformity and 

stability. ‘Lois’ will be commercially propagated by 

cuttings from the stock plants. Breeder: Carolynn Milne, 

Carol’s Propagation, Capalaba, QLD. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Golden Ruby’ was selected as the 


common knowledge on the basis of foliage colour. 



Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Golden Ruby’ and 















Table 13 Cuphea varieties 

‘Lois’ *‘Louisa’ A *‘Golden Ruby’ 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 22.12 19.02 19.85 


LSD/sig 2.49 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 32.31 19.00 20.53 


LSD/sig 1.75 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 0.69 1.01 0.97 


LSD/sig 0.14 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 0.98 0.64 0.76 


LSD/sig 0.16 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 2.84 3.88 3.51 


LSD/sig 0.32 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


emerging upper yellow-green base colour yellow-green 

144B green 143A 144C 

23


Table 13 continued 

emerging under yellow-green fringe yellow yellow-green 

144C 2D 145B 

mature upper green green yellow-green 

137B 143C 146A 

mature under green yellow yellow-green 

137B 2D 146B 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.23 0.95 1.01 


LSD/sig 0.11 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 



purple 78A purple 78A purple 78A 


purple 74A purple 78A purple 78B 

mature purple 74B purple 78A purple 78C 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 7.50 1.95 3.65 


LSD/sig 1.25 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 



‘Shona’ 

Application No: 1999 /004 Accepted: 21 Jan 1999. 


Characteristics (Table 14, Figure 33) Plant: small, bushy, 

upright, evergreen, perennial shrub with compact yellow 

foliage and contrasting purple flowers, mean height 20.0cm, 

mean width 27.7cm. Stem: red brown, internodes short. 

Leaf: small, lanceolate, mean length 31mm, mean width 

11.7mm, colour of emerging leaves yellow green (RHS 

144B), mature leaves green (RHS 137A). Flower: large, 

mean diameter 12.3mm, emerging purple violet (RHS 

80A), no fading on maturity, very floriferous, distribution of 

flowers even through out the bush. (Note all RHS colour 

chart numbers refer to 1995 edition). 







criteria: from this batch, ‘Shona’ was selected on the basis 

of compact growth habit, larger flower size, flower colour 

and profusion. It also has non-variegated leaves while the 



confirm uniformity and stability. ‘Shona’ will be 



QLD. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Golden Ruby’ was selected as the 


common knowledge on the basis of foliage colour. 



Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Golden Ruby’ and 

















‘Shona’ *‘Louisa’ A *‘Golden Ruby’ 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 27.70 19.00 20.53 


LSD/sig 2.32 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 0.73 1.01 0.97 


LSD/sig 0.15 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH (cm) 

mean 3.10 2.47 2.60 


LSD/sig 0.24 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.17 0.64 0.76 


LSD/sig 0.13 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 2.66 3.88 3.51 


LSD/sig 0.45 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF COLOUR (RHS 1995) 

emerging upperside 

yellow-green base colour yellow-green 

emerging underside 

same 

144B green 143A 144C 

fringe yellow yellow-green 

2D 145B 

mature upperside 

green green yellow-green 

137A 143C 146A 

mature underside 

same yellow yellow-green 

2D 146B 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.33 0.95 1.01 


LSD/sig 0.10 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

24




mean 7.60 3.20 3.70 


LSD/sig 1.25 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 



purple-violet purple 78A 

purple 78A 

80A 


purple-violet purple 78A purple 78B 

80A 

mature purple-violet purple 78A purple 78C 

80A 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 6.45 1.95 3.65 


LSD/sig 1.25 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 



‘Victoria’ 

Application No: 1999 /337 Accepted: 9 Dec 1999. 


Characteristics (Table 15, Figure 34) Plant: small, bushy, 

upright, evergreen, perennial shrub with a continual display 

of purple flower, mean height 28.2cm, mean width 32.0cm. 

Stem: red brown, internodes short. Leaf: small, lanceolate, 

mean length 32.8mm, mean width 13.4mm, colour of upper 

surface green (RHS 137A), lower surface green (RHS 

137C). Flower: large, mean diameter 14.5mm, strong 

purple violet (RHS 81A), no fading on maturity, very 

floriferous, distribution of flowers even through out the 

bush. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1995 

edition). 







criteria: from this batch, ‘Victoria’ was selected on the basis 

of growth habit and flower size, flower colour and 

flowering habit. It also has non-variegated leaves while the 



confirm uniformity and stability. ‘Victoria’ will be 



QLD. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Mad Hatter’ was selected as the 


common knowledge on the basis of flower colour. 



Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Mad Hatter’ and 














No prior applications. First sold in Australia in June 1999. 



‘Victoria’ *‘Louisa’ A *‘Mad Hatter’ 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 28.20 19.02 15.95 


LSD/sig 2.21 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 32.00 19.00 35.33 


LSD/sig 3.59 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 0.88 1.01 0.46 


LSD/sig 0.12 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH (cm) 

mean 3.28 2.47 2.59 


LSD/sig 0.37 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.34 0.64 1.32 


LSD/sig 0.20 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 2.45 3.88 1.99 


LSD/sig 0.30 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


emerging upperside 

green base colour green 

137A green 143A 143A 

emerging underside 

green fringe yellow green 

137A 2D 143A 

mature upperside 

green green green 

137A 143C 143A 

mature underside 

green yellow green 

137A 2D 143A 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.45 0.95 1.34 


LSD/sig 0.10 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

25


Table 15 continued 


mean 9.80 3.20 4.60 


LSD/sig 2.61 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 






mature purple 81A purple 78A purple 78A 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 7.00 1.95 7.54 


LSD/sig 0.80 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 




Dianella 

‘Border Gold’ 

Application No: 1999/296 Accepted: 10 Feb 2000. 

Applicant: Darwin Plant Wholesalers, Winnellie, NT. 

Characteristics (Table 16, Figure 23) Plant: perennial herb 

(to over 700mm) with horizontal subterranean rhizomes 

forming tight colonies with numerous erect narrow leaves 

as a terminal rosette. Stem: usually absent, basal leaves 

only. Leaf: tightly sheathed strongly isobilateral lower part, 

prominently keeled with no distinct inflection point, narrow 

(mean 29.3 mm at widest point), linear-lanceolate, long, 

length (mean 526.2 mm), variegated in linear longitudinal 

stripes, upper surface flat or dull appearance, green (RHS 

143A/143B) and yellow-green (RHS 150A/150B)[shade 

grown] to yellow (RHS 8B) [high light grown], minute teeth 

present along entire keel length, teeth present on leaf 

margin only when coloured yellow green or yellow. 

Inflorescence: does not exceed leaf height, short terminal 

branches 10-20mm with 10-20 pedicels. Flower: bright blue 

to purple perianth segments (RHS 97A/97B), filament 

anther base bright yellow (RHS 5A/9A). Fruit: succulent 

berry, immature fruit violet blue (RHS 93C/92A/91A), 

mature fruit purple (RHS 94B/94A). Seeds: black, shiny, 

length 3-6mm. (All RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1986 

edition.) 

Origin and Breeding Phenotypic selection: parental 

material introduced from Singapore by the breeder in early 

1980s. Selections of mutations within this variable material 

at the nursery near Humpty Doo, NT, produced entire green 

and green/white variegated material, with further selection 

and vegetative propagation isolating green/yellow 

variegated material in the mid 1990s. Selection criteria: 

yellow and green variegated leaves. Propagation: vegetative 

propagation from early selected material has continued to 

indicate uniformity and stability of the green /yellow 

striping. ‘Border Gold’ will be commercially propagated 

vegetatively. Breeder: Darwin Plant Wholesalers, 

Winnellie, NT, Australia. 

Choice of Comparators “Variegated” form was chosen 

because it is the original source material from which the 

variety was selected. “Green” form was selected from 

“Variegated” and both types of this material, although 

lacking specific cultivar names, are widely used 

commercially. While these materials are not formal 

varieties, no varieties of common knowledge have been 

identified. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: Commonly available 

“Variegated” and “Green” forms. Location: Lambell’s 

Lagoon, NT (Latitude 12º35′South, elevation 10m), Oct 

1999 – Feb 2000. Conditions: trial conducted outdoors 

under light shade cloth (approximately 50%), plants 

propagated from rhizomes with leaves, planted into 150mm 

pots filled with regular standard potting mix, nutrition 

maintained with slow release fertiliser, pest and disease 

treatments applied as required, low pressure overhead 

irrigation. Trial design: fifty pots of each variety arranged in 

a completely random design. Measurements: from ten 

plants at random. One sample per plant. 


Description: Peter G Harrison, Above Capricorn Technologies, 

Darwin/Nightcliff, NT. 

Table 16 Dianella varieties 

‘Border *Variegated *Green Form 

Gold’ Form 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH (mm) – leaf tip to inflection point where leaf 

leaves leaf base on the “stem” 

mean 526.2 337.0 383.5 


LSD/sig 60.9 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF WIDTH (mm)- at widest point of lamina 

mean 29.3 34.2 27.0 


LSD/sig 4.7 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH /WIDTH RATIO 

17.96 9.85 14.20 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF CHARACTERISTICS (RHS, 1986) 

leaf base strongly isobilateral weakly 

isobilateral 

isobilateral, 

tending to form 

distichous stem 

arrangement from basal distichous distichous 

rosette 

shape linear lanceolate linear 

lanceolate 

lanceolate 

variegated striping 

present present absent 

type of stripe multiple narrow pale not present 

linear bands on 

longitudinal margin 

bands 

disposition of leaf 

flat 

keel turns up flat 

prior to leaf 

tip 

26



keel prominent medium slight to medium 

keel teeth high medium absent 

frequency, frequency, 

coarse fine 

main colour upper side 

RHS143A/ RHS137B RHS137A 

143B 

secondary colour upper side 

RHS150A/ RHS4D n/a 

150B to 

RHS8B 

margin teeth only when present present 

margins 

not green 

upper surface appearance 

flat, dull semi-gloss low gloss 

to matt 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER CHARACTERISTICS (RHS, 1986) 

inflorescence position in relation to height of leaves 

less equal to or greater 

greater 

perianth colour RHS 97A/ RHS 91D RHS 91D 

97B (near) (near) 

anther colour RHS 5A/9A RHS 5A RHS 5A 

____________________________________________________ 


Carnation 

‘Codianki’ 

Application No: 1999/153 Accepted: 27 Oct 1999 

Applicant: The University of Sydney, Plant Breeding 

Institute, Cobbitty, NSW. 

Characteristics (Table 17, Figure 2) Plant: perennial, habit 

compact. Leaf: grey-green (RHS 191A, 1995), linear. 

Flower: double, petals eight to fifteen, pink at centre, bud 

cylindrical, stigma and style white, stamens white, margins 

deeply crenate; apex of epicalyx lobes acute, calyx 

campanulate. 

Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination followed by 

pedigree selection: X93.1.1 x pollen parent ‘Alpine White’. 

The seed parent was characterised by large double flowers. 

The pollen parent was characterised by short flower stems 

and single white flowers. Hybridisation was made at 

Baulkham Hills, NSW in 1994. From this cross, seedling 

number X94.9.1 was chosen in 1994 on the basis of flower 

form and colour, compact habit, repeat flowering and 

foliage colour. Propagation: vegetative through six 

generations. Breeder: Mr G N Brown, Baulkham Hills, 

NSW. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Mrs Sinkins’ was chosen as 

closest commonly known variety with double flowers and 

similar flower colour. The pollen parent ‘Alpine White’ was 

excluded because of its single white flowers. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: ‘Mrs Sinkins’. Location : 

Plant Breeding Institute, Cobbitty, NSW (latitude 34º00′S, 

longitude 150º41′E, elevation 70m), Oct 1999 – May 2000, 

observations taken on 7 May 2000. Conditions: trial 

conducted in plastic pots; all plants were propagated from 

cuttings, rooted cuttings planted in 200mm plastic pots 

filled with a well aerated standard soilless potting; the 

plants were watered by overhead irrigation and were not 

treated with chemicals nor trimmed in any way, nutrition 

maintained with slow release fertilisers. Trial design: 20 

plants each of ‘Codianki’, and of ‘Mrs Sinkins’ arranged in 

a completely random design. Measurements were taken at 

random from ten plants each of variety. 

Prior Applications and Sales First Australian sale Mar 

1999. 

Description: JD Oates, The University of Sydney, Plant Breeding Institute, 

Cobbitty, NSW. 

Table 17 Dianthus varieties 

‘Codianki’ *‘Mrs Sinkins’ 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO 

mean 22.092 35.125 


LSD/sig 4.174 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER DIAMETER (mm) 

mean 49.57 39.904 


LSD/sig 1.857 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


fully open 158D 158D 

petal base 78A 78C 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF COLOUR (RHS,1995) 

adaxial surface 191A 137A 

____________________________________________________ 

PETAL NUMBER 8-15 9-11 

petal margin incised serrate 

____________________________________________________ 

Diascia sp 

Diascia 

‘Codiach’ 



Institute, Cobbitty NSW. 

Characteristics (Table 18, Figure 1) Plant: dwarf, erect, 

soft wooded perennial, compact habit. Stem: leaf adaxial 

surface green (RHS 137B) margin serrate, apex acute, 

glabrous. Inflorescence: terminal raceme. Flower: peach 

colour (RHS 42D), pedicel length medium (mean 33.5mm). 

Pollen: colour yellow. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers 



pedigree selection: ‘Strawberry Sundae’ A x pollen parent 

X96.1.1. The seed parent was characterised by anemone 

flower type and compact bushy habit. The pollen parent was 

characterised by dark peach flower colour. Hybridisation 

27


was done at Baulkham Hills, NSW. From this cross, 

seedling number X96.14.2 was selected in 1996. Selection 

criteria: compact growth habit, flower morphology and 

colour. Propagation: vegetative through six generations. 

Breeder: Mr G N Brown, Baulkham Hills, NSW. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Strawberry Sundae’ A was 

chosen over ‘Corelle Belle’ (Flower colour: RHS 48A – 

48B, 1995) as closest commonly known variety. 

‘Strawberry Sundae’ A is also the seed parent of the 

candidate. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: ‘Strawberry Sundae’ A . 

Location: Plant Breeding Institute, Cobbitty, NSW (latitude 

34º00′S, longitude 150º41′E, elevation 70m), Oct 1999 – 

May 2000, observations taken on 7 May 2000. Conditions: 

trial conducted in open. All plants were propagated from 


filled with a well aerated standard soilless potting mix; the 


treated with chemicals nor trimmed in any way; nutrition 


plants each of ‘Codiach’, ‘Codiape’ and of ‘Strawberry 

Sundae’ A arranged in a completely random design. 

Measurements were taken at random from ten plants each 

variety. 

Prior Applications and Sales First Australian sale March 

2000. 

Description: J D Oates and GN Brown, The University of Sydney, Plant 

Breeding institute, Cobbitty, NSW. 

‘Codiape’ 




Characteristics (Table 18, Figure 1) Plant: dwarf, erect, 

soft wooded perennial, habit compact. Leaf: adaxial surface 

green (RHS 137B), margin serrate, apex acute, glabrous. 

Inflorescence: terminal raceme. Flower: peach colour (RHS 

42D), pedicel medium (mean length 29.9mm). Pollen: 

colour yellow. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 

1995 edition.) 


pedigree selection: ‘Strawberry Sundae’ A x pollen parent 

X96.1.1. The seed parent was characterised by anemone 

flower type and compact bushy habit. The pollen parent was 

characterised by dark peach flower colour. Hybridisation 

was made at Baulkham Hills, NSW. From this cross, 

seedling number X96.14.2 was chosen in 1996 on the basis 

of flower colour, compact habit. Selection criteria: growth 

habit, flower morphology and colour. Propagation: 

vegetative through six generations. Breeder: Mr G N 

Brown, Baulkham Hills, NSW. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Strawberry Sundae’ A was 

chosen over ‘Corae Belle’ (Flower colour: RHS 48A-48B, 

1995) as closest commonly known variety. ‘Strawberry 

Sundae’ A is also the seed parent of the candidate. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: ‘Strawberry Sundae’ A . 




trial conducted in open. All plants were propagated from 


filled with a well aerated standard soilless potting mix; the 


treated with chemicals nor trimmed in any way, nutrition 


plants each of ‘Codiach’, ‘Codiape’ and of ‘Strawberry 

Sundae’ A arranged in a completely random design. 

Measurements were taken at random from ten plants each 

variety. 

Prior Applications and Sales First Australian sale March 

2000 

Description: JD Oates and GN Brown, The University of Sydney, Plant 

Breeding institute Cobbitty, NSW. 

Table 18 Diascia varieties 

‘Codiach’ ‘Codiape’ *‘Strawberry 

Sundae’ A 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO (LSD at P≤0.01 = 0.022) 

mean 3.057 a 2.614 b 2.261 c 

std deviation 0.038 0.084 0.051 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO (LSD at P≤0.01 = 0.044) 

mean 1.375 b 1.130 c 1.547 a 

std deviation 0.071 0.103 0.192 

____________________________________________________ 

PEDICEL LENGTH (cm) (LSD at P≤0.01 = 0.235) 

mean 3.345 a 2.991 b 2.614 c 

std deviation 0.758 0.580 0.624 

____________________________________________________ 

INNER SPUR LENGTH (mm) – calyx tip 

(LSD at P≤0.01 = 0.144) 

mean 8.259b 8.344b 9.100a 

std deviation 0.404 0.543 0.619 

____________________________________________________ 


fully open 52B 42D 69D 

spotting absent present absent 

____________________________________________________ 


adaxial surface 137A 137B 137A 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF SHAPE cordate cordate lanceolate 

____________________________________________________ 

SPUR CURVATURE 

straight outward inward 

____________________________________________________ 

Mean values followed by same letters are not significantly different at 

P≤0.01 according to DMRT. 


Tall Fescue 

‘Resolute’ 

Application No: 1998/131 Accepted: 19 Jan 1999. 

Applicant: Wrightson Seeds Ltd, Christchurch, New 

Zealand. 

Agent: Wrightson Seeds (Australia) Pty Ltd , Melbourne, 

VIC. 

28



Characteristics (Table 19, Figure 47) Plant: habit upright 

(winter), prostrate (summer), early maturing. Stem: long 

(1134mm), upper internode length long (590mm). 

Vegetative leaf: length medium (252mm), width narrow 

(7.9mm). Flag leaf: length medium (227mm), width narrow 

(8.2mm). Panicle: length medium (284mm). Spikelet: 

length medium (14mm). 

Origin and Breeding Phenotypic selection and openpollination: 

within ‘Melik’. Selection produced two 

breeding lines (KFa949 and KFa9410) which were 

evaluated for forage and seed production potential. From 

these lines, KFa949 was selected to become ‘Resolute’. 

Selection criteria: seedling vigour, finer leaves, increased 

tiller density, increased dry matter yield, improved seed 

production and increased homogeneity. Propagation: by 

seed. Breeder: Wrightson Seeds, Christchurch, New 

Zealand. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Melik’ was chosen because it is 

the original source material from which the variety was 

selected. At the time of application, the source material 

represented a unique type of summer dormant, winter active 

tall fescue. No other similar varieties of common 

knowledge have been identified. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: ‘Melik’. Location: 

Lincoln, NZ (Latitude 43º36′ South, elevation 30m), springsummer-autumn 

1999-2000. Conditions: trial conducted in 

field, seedlings propagated in glasshouse then transplanted 

late autumn. Irrigation applied during summer as required. 

Trial design: ten replicates of ten plants per variety, 

arranged in a randomised block design, with 60cm interplant 

spacings. Measurements: from all plants. One 

‘typical’ tiller measured per plant. 


Description: Michael Norriss, Wrightson Seeds, Christchurch, New 

Zealand 

Table 19 Festuca varieties 

‘Resolute’ *‘Melik’ 

____________________________________________________ 

STEM LENGTH (mm) 

mean 1134 1235 

std deviation 135 112 

LSD/sig 39.1 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

VEGETATIVE LEAF LENGTH (mm) 

mean 252 289 


LSD/sig 14.6 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

VEGETATIVE LEAF WIDTH (mm) 

mean 7.9 9.0 


LSD/sig 0.44 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

DAYS TO HEAD FROM SOWING 

mean 56.4 53.9 


LSD/sig 2.24 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


Weeping Fig 

‘Baft’ syn Bushy Princess 

Application No: 1999/342 Accepted: 31 Jan 2000. 

Applicant: Gebr W. van der Knaap, De Kwakel, The 

Netherlands. 


QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 20 and Figure 26) Plant: habit 

upright to semi-erect giving somewhat umbrella shape, 

short but wide (average 20cm high, 27.6cm wide), height to 

width ratio of 0.73 indicating the tendency for horizontal 

growth, compact and very dense foliage of stunning greyed 

green colour with very fine yellow green fringe or rim. 

Stem: main stem branches fairly irregularly, side branches 

arise at about 60 degrees to main stem and tend to grow 

sideways, tips of branches almost horizontal to hanging, 

internodes very short (average 1.06cm) but variable, young 

stem light greyish green, mature stems turning light greyish 

brown. Leaf: petiole short (average 1.14cm) but variable, 

colour greyish green with trace of brownish colour at 

maturity, average blade size 6.05cm x 2.64cm, L/B ratio of 

2.29, slight variegation present but not pronounced, 

emerging leaves light green with irregular light yellow 

green rim or fringe, colour darkens with maturity, upper 

surface predominant colour greyed green (RHS 189A), 

secondary colour of margin or fringe yellow green (RHS 

150D), fringe mainly confined to margins but somewhat 

irregular, representing only about 5 to 10 percent of leaf 

area, lower surface greyed green (RHS 191A), fringe 

yellow green (RHS 154D), shape elliptic to ovate with 

distinct pointed apex (average 0.9cm tending to be 

somewhat concave. Stipule: light green with brownish red 

trace at top occasionally, withers and drops quickly. (Note: 

all RHS colour chart number refers to 1995 edition) 


sport of ‘Marole’ A syn Bushy King A at applicant’s 

property in The Netherlands in 1993. The sport is semierect, 

tips trending to be horizontal to hanging, more 

spreading, compact, dense, similar internodes and leaves 

but variegation less pronounced when compared with 

parental variety ‘Marole’ A . It was vegetatively propagated 

through several generations to confirm the uniformity and 

stability. Selection criteria: tendency for horizontal growth 

of tops with hanging tips compared to upright habit of 

parent, compact and dense foliage, variegation less 

pronounced. Propagation: vegetatively propagated through 

cuttings. Breeder: W. van der Knaap, De Kwakel, The 

Netherlands. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Marole’ A was chosen as one of 


some similarities with the candidate. ‘Golden Princess’ was 

also chosen, as it is a similar variety of common knowledge. 

No other similar varieties of common knowledge have been 

identified. 

Comparative Trials Comparators: ‘Marole’ A and ‘Golden 

Princes’. Location: Wellington Point, QLD, Aug 1999 – Apr 

2000. Conditions: trial conducted in shadehouse, plants 

29


propagated from cuttings (3/9/99) and potted into 140mm 

pots with soilless media (peat and bark based), nutrition 

maintained with controlled release fertilisers, pest and 

disease management applied as required. Trial design: 30 

pots of each variety arranged in a completely randomised 

design. Measurements: from 10 plants at random, third fully 

expanded leaf and third and fourth internodes were 

measured, abnormal leaves or internodes were discarded, 

plant height was taken from top of pot to tip. 



The Netherlands 1994 Granted ‘Baft’ 

First sold in The Netherlands in Mar 1996. First Australian 

sales Nil. 

Description : Deo Singh, Ornatec Pty Ltd, QLD. 

Table 20 Ficus varieties 

‘Baft’ syn *‘Marole’ A *‘Golden 

Bushy syn Princess’ 

Princess Bushy 

King A 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 20.00 19.10 26.20 


LSD/sig 3.43 ns P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 27.60 21.10 46.70 


LSD/sig 3.18 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 0.73 0.92 0.81 


LSD/sig 0.17 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.06 1.16 3.37 


LSD/sig 0.30 ns P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.14 1.12 1.60 


LSD/sig 0.18 ns P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 6.05 6.22 8.29 


LSD/sig 0.58 ns P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 2.64 3.25 4.25 


LSD/sig 0.19 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 2.29 1.91 1.95 


LSD/sig 0.14 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


leaf fringe-upper 150D 150D 150D – 145B 

leaf fringe–lower154D 154D 154D 

upper surface 189A 189A 189A 

lower surface 191A 191A 191A 

____________________________________________________ 

‘Vivian’ syn Indigo 

Application No: 1997/088 Accepted: 21 May 1997. 

Applicant: Plantenkwekerij J. van Geest B.V., 

Perzikenlaan, The Netherlands. 


QLD. 


upright to spreading, short but wide (average 32.80cm high, 

58.20cm wide), height to width ratio of 0.60 indicating the 

tendency for horizontal growth, foliage not dense or 

compact, stunning deep green colour with light patch 

around the centre of leaves. Stem: main stem branches 

fairly irregularly, side branches arise at about 45 degrees to 

main stem and tend to grow sideways, tips of branches 

hanging or weeping, internodes long (average 4.04cm) but 

variable, young stem light greyish green, mature stems 

turning light greyish brown. Leaf: petiole short (average 

1.58cm) but variable, colour greyish green with trace of 

brownish colour at maturity, average blade size 8.22cm x 

3.70cm, L/B ratio of 2.23, light patch present in centre 

pronounced, emerging leaves light green, upper surface 

(RHS 143A), lower surface yellow green (RHS 144A), 

colour darkens with maturity, upper surface dark 

predominant colour green (darker then RHS 139A), 

secondary colour of patch green (RHS 137A), lower surface 

not as dark green (RHS 139A), shape ovate with distinct 

pointed apex (average 0.9cm tending to be somewhat 

concave, highly glossy. Stipule: light green with brownish 

red trace at top occasionally, withers and drops quickly. 

(Note: all RHS colour chart number refers to 1995 edition) 


sport of ‘Exotica’ in at applicant’s property in The 

Netherlands in 1992. The sport is more spreading, compact, 

dense, very dark green leaves with light green patch in the 

centre of leaves when compared with parental variety 

‘Exotica’. It was vegetatively propagated through several 

generations to confirm uniformity and stability. Selection 

criteria: dark green leaves with light green patch in the 

middle of leaves compared to usual green leaves of the 

parent. Propagation: vegetatively propagated through 

cuttings. Breeder: Jan van Geest, Perzikenlaan,The 

Netherlands. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Exotica’ was chosen as one of the 

comparators because it is the parental variety and has some 

similarities with the candidate. ‘Midnight Beauty’ A was 

chosen as it is a similar variety of common knowledge and 

is the mutant of ‘Vivian’. No other similar varieties of 

common knowledge have been identified. 

Comparative Trials Comparators: ‘Exotica’ and ‘Midnight 

Beauty’ A . Location: Wellington Point, QLD, Aug 1999 – 

Apr 2000. Conditions: trial conducted in shadehouse, plants 

propagated from cuttings (3/9/99) and potted into 140mm 

pots with soilless media (peat and bark based), nutrition 


30





design. Measurements: from 10 plants at random, third fully 






The Netherlands 1992 Granted ‘Vivian’ 

Germany 1993 Surrendered ‘Vivian’ 

EU 1995 Granted ‘Vivian’ 

USA 1995 Granted ‘Indigo’ 

South Africa 1998 Withdrawn ‘Vivian’ 

First sold in The Netherlands in Sep 1993. First Australian 

sales Nil. 

Description : Deo Singh, Ornatec Pty Ltd, QLD. 


‘Vivian’ syn *‘Exotica ’ *‘Midnight 

Indigo 

Beauty’ A 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 32.80 40.60 34.40 


LSD/sig 5.41 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 58.20 45.30 21.60 

std deviation 13.14 7.12 1.50 

LSD/sig 10.45 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 0.60 0.92 1.60 


LSD/sig 0.23 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 4.04 4.37 2.46 


LSD/sig 0.76 ns P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 8.22 9.36 8.80 


LSD/sig 0.73 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 3.70 4.30 3.65 


LSD/sig 0.31 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 2.29 1.91 1.95 


LSD/sig 0.14 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


new leaf -upper 143A 146A 137B 

new leaf-lower 144A 146C 137C 

mature – upper darker than 137A 139A 

139A 

mature – lower 139A 137B 137A 

foliage appearance 

dark green green dark green 

patch or spot 137A absent absent 

_______________________________________________ 


India Rubber Tree 

‘Melany’ 

Application No: 1999/149 Accepted: 24 Jun 1999. 

Applicant: Plantenkwekerij J. van Geest B.V., 

Perzikenlaan, The Netherlands. 


QLD. 


upright with basal branching, short but not wide (average 

34.20cm high, 28.50cm wide), height to width ratio of 2.36 

indicating the tendency for upright growth but mainly due 

to smaller leaf size, foliage dense and compact, attractive 

brownish glossy leaves. Stem: main stem does not usually 

branch into side branches, basal branches arises in time, 

internodes short (average 1.31cm) but variable, young stem 

light brownish green, mature stems turning light greyish 

brown. Leaf: petiole short (average 1.94cm) but variable, 

colour brownish green but with maturity darkens to brown, 

average blade size 17.60cm x 7.71cm, L/B ratio of 2.29, tips 

are short (average 1.04cm), emerging leaves brownish 

upper surface (RHS 200C), lower surface (RHS 200D), 

colour darkens with maturity, upper surface dark green 

(darker then RHS 139A) predominant colour, lower surface 

not as dark green (ca. RHS 139A), shape elliptic with 

distinct pointed apex (average 0.9cm) tending to be 

somewhat concave, highly glossy. Stipule: emerge greyed 

purple (RHS 185A) and fade to red (RHS 44A), withers and 

drops quickly. (Note: all RHS colour chart number refers to 

1995 edition) 


sport of ‘Robusta’ at applicant’s property in The 

Netherlands in 1992. The sport has basal branching, darker 

green mature leaves, glossy, smaller and shorter internodes 

when compared with parental variety ‘Robusta’. It was 

vegetatively propagated through several generations to 

confirm uniformity and stability. Selection criteria: darker 

green smaller leaves, shorter internodes and basal branching 

when compared to green leaves (blackish) of parent. 

Propagation: vegetatively propagated through tissue 

culture. Breeder: Jan van Geest, Perzikenlaan, The 

Netherlands. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Robusta’ was chosen as one of 


some similarities with the candidate. ‘Cabernet’ was 

chosen, as it is a similar variety of common knowledge. 

‘Sylvie’ was initially considered but excluded because of 

variegated leaves. No other similar varieties of common 

knowledge have been identified. 

Comparative Trials Comparators: ‘Robusta’ and 

‘Cabernet’. Location: Wellington Point, QLD, Nov 1999 – 

Apr 2000. Conditions: trial conducted in shadehouse, ex – 

tissue culture plants were potted (3/12/99) into 140mm pots 

with soilless media (peat and bark based), nutrition 

31





design. Measurements: from all trial plants, third fully 





Country Year Status Name Applied 

The Netherlands 1992 Granted ‘Melany’ 

EU 1995 Granted ‘Melany’ 

USA 1996 Granted ‘Melany’ 

South Africa 1998 Granted ‘Melany’ 

First sold in The Netherlands in Jul 1995 as ‘Melany’. First 

Australian sales Nil. 



‘Melany’ *‘Robusta ’ *‘Cabernet’ 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 34.20 45.10 29.10 


LSD/sig 4.84 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 28.50 39.80 24.50 


LSD/sig 5.15 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.20 1.13 1.18 


LSD/sig 2.42 ns ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.31 2.09 1.44 


LSD/sig 0.13 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 1.94 3.33 1.50 


LSD/sig 0.35 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 17.60 20.39 16.45 


LSD/sig 1.19 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 2.29 1.93 1.71 


LSD/sig 0.14 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


new leaf – upper 

200C 146A 137B 

new leaf – lower 

200D 146C 137C 

mature – upper darker than 137A 139A 


mature – lower 189A 137B 137A 

foliage appearance 

brownish dark green blackish 

green 

green 

stipule 185A-44A 185A-44A 185A-44A 

____________________________________________________ 


Impatiens 

‘Codimpca’ 




Characteristics (Table 23, Figure 3) Plant: perennial, habit 

compact. Leaf: length short to medium, width medium, 

ovate, adaxial colour green (RHS 137A), Flower: double, 

pink (RHS 68D). Petal: eye zone present, (RHS 66A). 

(Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1995 edition.) 


pedigree selection: self from X96.5.1. Hybridisation was 

made at Baulkham Hills, NSW 1996. Seedling selection in 

1996 on the basis of flower form and colour, and plant form. 

Propagation: vegetative through six generations. Breeder: 

Mr G N Brown, Baulkham Hills, NSW. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Fiesta Pink Ruffle’ A was chosen 

as the most similar variety of common knowledge with 

double flowers and similar flower colour. ‘Rebecca’ was 

originally considered, but rejected due to taller plant height 

and larger flower. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: ‘Fiesta Pink Ruffle’ A 




trial conducted in plastic pots in semi-shaded situation. all 

plants were propagated from cuttings, rooted cuttings 

planted in 110mm plastic pots filled with a well aerated 

standard soilless potting; plants were watered by overhead 

irrigation and were not treated with chemicals nor trimmed 

in any way, nutrition maintained with slow release 

fertilisers. Trial design: 20 plants each of ‘Codimpca’, and 

‘Fiesta Pink Ruffle’ A arranged in a completely random 

design. Measurements were taken at random from ten 

plants of each variety. 

Prior Applications and Sales First Australian sale Mar 

1998. 

Description: JD Oates, The University of Sydney, Plant Breeding 


Table 23 Impatiens varieties 

‘Codimpca’ *‘Fiesta Pink 

Ruffle’ A 

___________________________________________________ 


mean 2.013 2.170 

std deviation 0.232 0.139 

LSD/sig 0.21 ns 

_______________________________________________ 

Continued … 

32


Fig 1 

Diascia – flowers and leaves of (left to right) 

‘Codiach’, ‘Codiape’ and ‘Strawberry 

Sundae’ A showing differences in colour and 

size of these characters. Grid size = 10mm. 

Fig 2 

Dianthus – flowers and leaves of (left to right) 

‘Codianki’ and ‘Mrs Sinkins’ showing 

differences in colour and size of these 

characters. Grid size = 10mm. 

Fig 3 

Impatiens – flowers and leaves of (left to right) 

‘Codimpca’ and Fiesta Pink Ruffle A . Showing 

differences in colour and size of these 


Fig 4 

Petunia – flowers and leaves of (left to right) 

‘Cobink’, ‘Traveller’ A and ‘Adventurer’ A . 

Showing differences in colour and size of these 


Fig 5 

Lavandula – flowers, scape, stem and leaves of 

(left to right) ‘Silver Feather’ and ‘Sidonie’ A . 

showing differences in colour and size of these 


Fig 6 

Lilium – flowers and buds of 

‘Hoffrica Blue Eyes’.


Fig 7 

Bougainvillea – leaves and bracts of ‘Jazzi’ with 

comparators ‘Hot Chilli’ and ‘Mrs Butt’. 

Fig 8 

Bougainvillea – leaves and bracts of ‘Jellibene’ 

with comparators ‘Scarlet Queen’ and 

‘Raspberry Ice’. 

Fig 9 

Bougainvillea – leaves and bracts of ‘Marlu’ 

with comparators ‘Nonya’ and ‘Krishna’. 

Fig 10 Bougainvillea – leaves and bracts of ‘Siggi’ with 

comparators ‘Barley Sugar’ and ‘Golden 

Tango’. 

Fig 11 Bougainvillea – leaves and bracts of ‘Toffi’ with 

comparators ‘Sundance’ and ‘Bokay’. 

Fig 12 Bougainvillea – leaves and bracts of ‘Tosca’ with 

comparators ‘Blushing Beauty’ and ‘Red 

Dwarf’ (small red).


Fig 13 Pelargonium – leaves, flowers and buds of 

‘Pentom’ (top left) and ‘Penvel’ (bottom left) and 

their comparators ‘Thornland’s Burgundy’ (top 

right) and ‘Mexican Beauty’ (bottom right). 

Fig 14 Sutera – flowers and leaves of ‘Bridal Showers’ 

(left) with comparators ‘Blizzard’ (centre) and 

‘Snowflake’ (right). 

Fig 15 Scaevola – flowering shoots of ‘Rhapsody’ and 

‘Sweet Serenade’ with comparator ‘Purple 

Fanfare’. 

Fig 16 Xanthostemon – a typical leaf of ‘Trailblazer’ 

with comparator X. chrysanthus unnamed green 

leaf selection. 

Fig 17 Bracteantha – flowering plant of ‘Wanetta 

Sunshine’ with comparator ‘Blackfellow’s Gap’. 

Fig 18 Barleria – flower of ‘Jetstreak’ with comparator 

B. cristata common form.


Fig 19 Pentas – flowers of ‘Blushing Pearl’ with 

comparator P. lanceolata common form. 

Fig 20 Leucadendron – shoot of ‘Corringle Gold’ with 

comparators unnamed parent and ‘Katie’s 

Blush’. ‘Katie’s Blush’ was later excluded for its 

different hybrid parentage and red leaf colour. 

Fig 21 Olearia – vegetative shoots of ‘Little Smokie’ 

(right) and Olearia axillaris (left) displaying 

shoot and leaf characteristics. 

Fig 22 Leptospermum – leaves of ‘Beach Baby’ with 

common form of L. laevigatum. 

Fig 23 Dianella – leaves of ‘Border Gold’ and 

comparators variegated form and green form. 

Fig 24 Pittosporum tenuifolium – leaves of ‘PTSS2’, 

‘PTGP1’, ‘PTSS1’, ‘Sunburst’ and ‘Stirling 

Mist’ (from left to right) showing differences in 

leaf shape, colour and variegation.


Fig 25 Pittosporum ralphii leaves of ‘Cathy’ (left) and 

P. ralphii var garnettii (right) showing 

differences in variegation. 

Fig 26 Ficus – plants of ‘Baft’ with comparators 

‘Bushy King’ and ‘Golden Princess’ showing 

differences in growth habit and leaf colour. 

Fig 27 Ficus – plants of ‘Indigo’ with comparators 

‘Midnight Beauty’ and ‘Exotica’ showing 

differences in growth habit. 

Fig 28 Ficus – plants of ‘Melany’ with comparators 

‘Robusta’ and ‘Cabernet’ showing differences in 

plant height. 

Fig 29 Codiaeum – plants of ‘Grubell’ with comparator 

‘Reedii’. In ‘Grubell’ plants distinct “bell” 

shaped leaves are present. 

Fig 30 Cuphea – plants of ‘Karissa’ with comparators 

‘Louisa’ and ‘Mad Hatter’.


Fig 31 Cuphea – plants of ‘Little Hatter’ with 

comparator ‘Mad Hatter. 

Fig 32 Cuphea – plants of ‘Lois’ with comparators 

‘Louisa’ and ‘Golden Ruby’. 

Fig 33 Cuphea – plants of ‘Shona’ with comparators 

‘Louisa’ and ‘Golden Ruby’. 

Fig 34 Cuphea – plants of ‘Victoria’ with comparators 

‘Louisa’ and ‘Mad Hatter’. 

Fig 35 Malus domestica – fruits of ‘Mariri Red’, 

‘Lochbuie Red Braeburn’ and ‘Joburn’ showing 

differences in overcolour. 

Fig 36 Malus domestica – fruits ‘Lochbuie Red 

Braeburn’ (left) with comparator ‘Braeburn’ 

showing differences in overcolour.


Fig 37 Solanum tuberosum – tubers of ‘Victoria’, ‘Celeste’ and ‘Bintje’ (from left to right). A darker skin colour on 

‘Victoria’, smoother skin finish on ‘Celeste’ and the more prominent lenticels on ‘Bintje’ are distinguishing 

features. 

Fig 38 Solanum tuberosum – tubers of ‘Redstar’, 

‘Symfonia’ and ‘Desiree’. The rounder shape 

and slightly darker colour are apparent. 

Fig 39 Pisum sativum – ‘Snowpeak (left) with 

comparators ‘Mukta’ (right) and ‘Santi’ 

(centre) showing differences in seed shape, size 

and colour. 

Fig 40 Pisum sativum – ‘Morgan PSE 23’ (left), 

‘Glenroy’ (right) showing differences in the 

intensity of reddish purple colour of flower 

standard and wing and difference in petiole 

length. 

Fig 41 Triticum turgidum ssp turgidum – ‘Tamaroi’ 

(left) with comparator ‘Wollaroi’ (right) 

showing awn colour, lower glume beak and 

shoulder shape and grain shape.


Fig 42 Avena – ‘Quoll’ (centre) and its comparators 

‘Dalyup’, ‘Potoroo’, ‘Euro’ and ‘Echidna’ 

showing differences in the hairiness at the base 

of the primary grain. 

Fig 43 Medicago sativa – reaction of seedlings to 

inoculation with C. trifolii (12 days after 

inoculation) left to right (1 to 8): ‘Quadrella’, 

‘UQL-1’ (gen 2), ‘UQL-1’ (gen 1), ‘Trifecta’, 

‘Hunter River’, ‘Genesis’, ‘Hunterfield’ and 

‘Aurora’. 

Fig 44 Medicago sativa – flowering shoots of ‘Rapide’ 

(top right) with comparators ‘Alpha Express’ 

(top left), ‘Hasawi’ (bottom left) and ‘CUF 101’ 

(bottom right). 

Fig 45 Medicago truncatula – ‘Jester’ (middle) with 

comparators ‘Mogul’ and ‘Paraggio’ showing 

leaf mark differences. 

Fig 47 Festuca – plants of ‘Resolute’ (left) with 

comparator ‘Melik’ (right) showing differences 

in plant height. 

Fig 46 Vicia narbonensis – ‘Tanami’ (centre) with 

comparators ‘ATC 60667’ (left) and ‘ATC 

60105*1’ (right) showing differences in seed 

shape, size and colour. 

Fig 48 Zoysia – ‘El Toro’ showing leaf shape and stolon 

characteristics.



Continued from page 32 


mean 40.522 45.765 


LSD/sig 2.68 P≤0.01 

_______________________________________________ 

FLOWER COLOUR ( RHS, 1995) 

newly open 68B 58D 

eye zone 66A 60B 

_______________________________________________ 

LEAF COLOUR (RHS 1995) 

adaxial surface 137A 137B 

_______________________________________________ 


Lavender 

‘Silver Feather’ 

Application No: 1996/265 Accepted: 27 Feb 1997. 

Applicant: Protected Plant Promotions Australia Pty 

Ltd, Macquarie Fields, NSW and The University of 

Sydney, Plant Breeding Institute, Cobbitty, NSW. 

Agent: The University of Sydney, Plant Breeding 


Characteristics (Table 24, Figure 5) Plant: very compact 

aromatic shrub. Stem: branched, erect, slightly tomentose. 

Leaf: bipinnatisect, revolute margins, predominant colour 

greyed-green (RHS 191D, 1995). Inflorescence: terminal, 

long stalked spike, sometimes with two lateral opposite 

branching spikes. Flower: shape labiate, bracts ovate, 

flower colour violet-blue (RHS 90A, 1995). 


seedling selection: In 1995, The Plant Breeding Institute, 

Cobbitty planted a Lavender garden for outcrossing. 

Resultant seedlings were selected for plant habit compact, 

foliage colour, leaf characteristics and flower stem strength. 

The final selection, ‘Silver Feather’ was named for its very 

fine grey foliage, unique leaf characteristics and vigorous 

dwarf growth habit. Propagation: ‘Silver Feather’ will be 

commercially propagated by vegetative cuttings from stock 

plants. Breeder: Mr Graham Brown, The University of 

Sydney, Plant Breeding Institure, Cobbitty, NSW. 

Choice of Comparators Comparator ‘Sidonie’ A was 

chosen for its similarity with ‘Silver Feather’. No other 


identified. 

Comparative Trial Comparator Used: ‘Sidonie’ A . 




trial conducted in open ground. All plants were propagated 

from cuttings; rooted cuttings planted in 100mm plastic 

pots filled with a well aerated standard soilless potting mix 

and transplanted into open field at ten weeks; the plants 

were watered by overhead irrigation and were not treated 

with chemicals nor trimmed in any way. Nutrition 


plants each of ‘Silver Feather’, and of ‘Sidonie’ A arranged 

in a completely random design. Measurements: were taken 

at random from ten plants each of each variety. 


First sold in Australia Mar 1997 

Description: G. N. Brown, The University of Sydney, Plant Breeding 

Institute Cobbitty. 

Table 24 Lavandula varieties 

‘Silver Feather’ ‘Sidonie’ A 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 61.40 75.80 


LSD/sig 9.573 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 38.19 47.84 


LSD/sig 7.944 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LOBE WIDTH (mm) 

mean 2.77 3.75 


LSD/sig 0.468 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LOBE NUMBER 

mean 10.10 11.00 


LSD/sig 1.039 ns 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER COLOUR ( RHS, 1995), fully opened 

violet 88B violet 88B 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF COLOUR (RHS 1995), adaxial surface 

greyed-Green greyed-Green 

191B 

191A 

____________________________________________________ 

Note: This is an amended description of ‘Silver Feather’ published in PVJ 

11.4 pp31. 


Coast Tea Tree 

‘Beach Baby’ 

Application No: 1998/202 Accepted: 1 Dec 1998. 

Applicant: Wyvee Horticultural Services, Lilydale, VIC. 

Characteristics (Table 25, Figure 22) Plant: habit dwarf 

shrub, height short, mean 12.80cm. Internodes: short, mean 

2.14mm. Leaf: mean length 10.16mm, mean width 

4.63mm, shape oval, apex obtuse, base obtuse, leaf colours; 

mature leaf upper side green (RHS 137A), new shoots 

greyed-red (RHS 178C). (Note: All RHS colour chart 


Origin and Breeding Seedling selection: arose a seedling 

selection from a batch of seedlings of common form of 

Leptospermum laevigatum grown on the applicant’s 

property in Lilydale, VIC in 1996. The selected seedling is 

characterised by dwarf plant height compared to the 

parental form. Cuttings were taken and grown on for 

observation for the conformation of uniformity and 

stability. Selection criteria: compact and dwarf habit. 

Propagation: vegetative through at least 2 generations. 

Breeder: Clive Larkman, Lilydale, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators Common form of Leptospermum 

laevigatum was chosen because it is the parental material 

from which the candidate variety arose, and is also the most 

similar known variety of common knowledge. ‘Flamingo’ 

(Raeline) was considered but later was excluded because it 

is a variegated variety. 

33


Comparative Trial Comparator(s): Leptospermum 

laevigatum. Location: Lilydale, VIC, spring-autumn 1999- 

2000. Conditions: trial conducted in polyhouse, plants 

propagated from cutting, rooted cuttings planted into 

125mm pots filed with soilless potting mix (pine bark base), 

nutrition maintained with slow release fertilisers, pest and 

disease treatments applied as required. Trial design: ten pots 

of each variety arranged in a completely randomised design. 

Measurements: from twenty plants at random. One sample 

per plant. 

Prior Applications and Sales Nil 

Description: Mark Lunghusen, Croydon, VIC. 

Table 25 Leptospermum varieties 

‘Beach Baby’ *L. laevigatum 

Common Form 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 12.80 51.20 


LSD/sig 6.58 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

NEW SHOOT COLOUR (RHS, 1995) 

greyed-red yellow-green 

178C 

144A 

____________________________________________________ 

INTERNODE LENGTH (mm) 

mean 2.14 9.60 


LSD/sig 2.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH(mm) 

mean 10.16 17.14 


LSD/sig 1.21 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF WIDTH(mm) 

mean 4.63 6.35 


LSD/sig 0.68 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

MATURE LEAVES LEAF COLOUR UPPER SIDE 

(RHS, 1995) 

green 

green 



____________________________________________________ 

LEAF SHAPE oval obovate 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF BASE obtuse attenuate 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF APEX obtuse acuminate 

____________________________________________________ 

Leucadendron gandogeri x spissifolium 

Leucadendron 

‘Corringle Gold’ 

Application No: 1999/072 Accepted: 30 Mar 1999. 

Applicant: Corringle Proteas Pty Ltd, Newmerella, VIC. 

Agent: Proteaflora Nursery Pty Ltd, Monbulk, VIC. 

Characteristics (Table 26, Figure 20) Plant: male, upright 

bushy medium sized shrub. Stem: tinged with red (RHS 

46A), thicker stems slightly angled and ribbed. Leaf: 

alternate arrangement, narrow oblanceolate, average 82mm 

long with sessile bases and acuminate apices, slight to 

moderate twist, variegation present, central area of the leaf 

green (RHS 146A), margin colour deep yellow (RHS 12A). 

Variegated margins comprise 40-70% of leaf area, 

variegation is strongest in mature leaves in the apical third 

of the stem, variegation is faint in young leaves or shaded 

leaves at the base of plants (margins RHS146A). In autumn, 

the exposed surfaces of apical leaves are tinged with red 

(RHS 53B), strongest at the bases and margins of leaves. 

Inflorescence: yellow, apical tulip shaped inflorescences in 

late winter. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 

1986 edition). 

Origin and Breeding Spontaneous mutation: from an unnamed 

L. gandogeri x spissifolium hybrid. The source plant 

is a male Leucadendron characterised by bushy habit, red 

stems, narrow leaves and has a late winter flowering period. 

The variegated mutant arose on the breeder’s property in 

1992. It was selected through 3 selection cycles to produce 

‘Corringle Gold’. Selection criteria: variegated leaves, red 

stems, upright bushy habit. Propagation: by cuttings. 

Breeder: John and Jenny Di Cecco, Corringle Proteas Pty 

Ltd, Newmerella, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators The un-named L. gandogeri x 

spissifolium hybrid parent was chosen because it is the 

original source material from which the variety was 

selected. Initially L. laureolum x salignum ‘Katie’s Blush’ 

was considered as the second comparator as it is the only 

other variegated Leucadendron hybrid available in 

Australia. However, it was later rejected because it belongs 

to a different hybrid parentage and could be readily 

distinguishable from the candidate variety by its red leaf 

colour. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: L. gandogeri x 

spissifolium. .Location: Monbulk, VIC, Summer 1999- 

Autumn 2000. Conditions: trial outdoors in sunny position, 

plants propagated from cutting, rooted cuttings planted into 

140mm pots filled with soilless potting mix (pine bark 

base), nutrition maintained with a low level of slow release 

fertilisers. Plants were not pruned during the period of the 

trial. Trial design: ten pots of each variety arranged in a 

completely randomised design. Measurements: all plants 

were sampled for each characteristic. One sample per plant. 


Description: Paul Armitage, Proteaflora Nursery Pty Ltd, Monbulk, VIC. 

Table 26 Leucadendron varieties 

‘Corringle Gold’ *‘Un-named 

parent’ 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 423 505 

std deviation 49.67 124 

LSD/sig 71.67 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

SECONDARY SHOOTS; POINT OF ORIGIN 

mainly from mainly from 

basal 1/2 of basal 1/3 of 

primary branches primary branches 

____________________________________________________ 

34



LEAF COLOUR (margins of mature leaves) 

yellow 

yellow green 

RHS 12A RHS 146A 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF VARIEGATION 

present 

absent 

____________________________________________________ 

Lilium hybrid 

Lily 

‘Hoffrica Blue Eyes’ 


Applicant: Hoffgaarde B.V., Steenbergen, The 

Netherlands. 

Agent: Callinan Lawrie, Kew, VIC. 

Characteristics (Table 27, Figure 6) Plant: height tall. 

Stem: anthocyanin colouration (in the middle third) present. 

Leaf: length medium, width narrow to medium, variegation 

absent, predominant colour green. Inflorescence: racemose. 

Flower: flowering early, pedicel medium long, diameter 

small (average 12.5mm), petal number 5, main colour of 

inner side of inner petal (RHS 61D, but more red veined); 

outer side (RHS 61D, but more red); inner side of outer 

tepal RHS 61D, inner side of inner tepal self coloured (RHS 

61D). (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1995 

edition.) 


‘unnamed seedling’ x pollen parent ‘unnamed seedling’ in a 

planned breeding program. Both seed and pollen parent are 

proprietary breeding lines developed by the applicant and 

are characterised by early flowering. Hybridisation took 

place in Steenbergen, the Netherlands in the early 90’s. 

Selection criteria: early flowering, length, vigour, flower 

shape and colour over two years. Propagation: a number 

mature plants were generated from this cross through tissue 

culture and were found to be uniform and stable. 

Commercial propagation by tissue culture and bulbs. 

Breeder: Mr. P.M.M. Hoff, Steenbergen, the Netherlands. 

Choice of Comparators The qualified person considers 

‘Vogue’ to be the most similar variety of common 

knowledge in Australia in terms of flower colour. The 

parents were not considered because these are noncommercial 

breeding lines within the breeding program. No 

other similar varieties have been identified. 

Comparative Trial Description based on official CPOV 

PBR documents (LEL 1432). Testing was done by Raad 

voor het Kwekersrecht in Wangeningen, The Netherlands 

and that data was confirmed by local observations and 

measurements. Comparator: ‘Vogue’. Location: Wandin 

VIC, Nov 1999. Trial conditions: plants grown in the open. 

Varieties grown in large blocks. Bulbs from cold storage 

into fumigated Kraznozem type clay loam soil. Bulbs 

planted in early spring (early Sep). Plant health maintained 

with NPK fertiliser and micronutrients. Protective sprays as 

required. Flowering occurred Nov-Dec. Measurements: a 

minimum of 10 random plants measured for each variety. 



European Union 1996 Applied ‘Blue Eyes’ 

USA 1997 Granted ‘Blue Eyes’ 

New Zealand 1997 Granted ‘Blue Eyes’ 

South Africa 1997 Granted ‘Blue Eyes’ 

First Sold in the Netherlands in Feb 1997. First sold in 

Australia in 1997. 

Table 27 Lilium varieties 

‘Hoffrica *‘Vogue’ 

Blue Eyes’ 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER: COLOURATION OF INNER SIDE OF INNER 

TEPAL (RHS, 1995) 

61D 

56B 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWERING TIME 

early 

late 

____________________________________________________ 


Italian Ryegrass, Shortlived Ryegrass 

‘Dargle’ 

Application No: 1997/032 Accepted: 20 March 1997. 

Applicant: Range and Forage Institute, Pietermaritzburg, 

South Africa. 

Agent: Pacific Seeds, Toowoomba, QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 28) Ploidy: diploid. Plant: habit 

upright, height of fertile tillers at maturity high (mean 

106.45cm – pulled). Flag leaf: length medium (mean 

263.79mm), width wide (11.05mm). Inflorescence: spike 

length medium (311.66mm), spikelet length short 

(17.93mm), spikelet density medium, heading late (22nd 

Sep). 

Origin and Breeding Polycross: open pollination of 

‘Concord’, ‘Imperial’ and P/C15 in a spaced plant nursery 

in South Africa. P/C 15 is a diploid Italian line bred by the 

applicant. Selection criteria: F 1 to F 5 plants selected for 

medium to late flowering, leafiness, high production, erect 

habit, resistance to leaf and stem rust and good recovery 

after heavy grazing. Propagation: by seed. Breeder: D C W 

Goodenough, Range and Forage Institute, Pietermaritzburg, 

Kwa Zulu, Natal, South Africa. 

Choice of Comparators Diploid varieties of common 

knowledge having similar heading dates were selected as 

comparators: ‘Eclipse’ A , ‘Noble’ A , ‘Dargo’ A , ‘Flanker’ A , 

‘Surrey’, ‘Progrow’ A , ‘Corvette’. The parental varieties 

‘Concord’ and ‘Imperial’ were excluded because ‘Dargle’ is 

known to have higher seed weight than ‘Concord’ 

(2.6g/1000 vs 2.3g/1000) and ‘Imperial’ is a Swedish 

variety with winter growth superior to ‘Concord’ and was 

sufficiently different from ‘Dargle’ to exclude. 

35


Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Eclipse’ A , ‘Noble’ A , 

‘Dargo’ A , ‘Flanker’ A , ‘Surrey’, ‘Progrow’ A , ‘Corvette’. 

Location: Whittlesea, VIC, spring-summer of 1999. 

Conditions: planted as spaced plants in open beds, managed 

for even and uniform growth. Trial design: 60 spaced plants 

of each variety arranged in randomised complete blocks 

with 6 replicates. Measurements: from all trial plants. 



Denmark 1996 Withdrawn ‘Dargle’ 

South Africa 1996 Granted ‘Dargle’ 

First sold in South Africa in Jan 1994. First Australian sales 

in Mar 1998. 

Description: Ian Aberdeen, Aberdeen Consulting Pty Ltd., Kilmore, VIC. 

Table 28 Lolium varieties 

‘Dargle’ *‘Eclipse’ A *‘Noble’ A *‘Dargo’ A *‘Flanker’ A *‘Surrey’ *‘Progrow’ A *‘Corvette’ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

FLAG LEAF LENGTH (mm) 

mean 263.79 260.89 256.69 228.97 273.44 247.50 270.30 269.55 

std deviation 41.72 51.41 41.62 54.09 64.37 55.76 66.13 56.64 

LSD/sig 23.92 ns ns P≤0.01 ns ns ns ns 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

FLAG LEAF WIDTH (mm) 

mean 11.05 10.72 10.71 9.61 9.94 10.97 11.00 10.32 

std deviation 1.42 1.79 1.47 1.61 1.26 1.73 1.78 1.51 

LSD/sig 0.70 ns ns P≤0.01 P≤0.01 ns ns ns 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PULLED STEM LENGTH (cm) 

mean 106.45 95.98 105.28 107.77 103.72 103.48 101.60 103.03 

std deviation 11.36 17.19 13.56 16.66 11.01 15.03 14.60 12.36 

LSD/sig 6.13 P≤0.01 ns ns ns ns ns ns 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DAYS TO HEADING (from 30/09/99) 

mean 53.51 57.36 51.84 34.47 50.05 38.98 48.83 47.99 

std deviation 9.78 7.54 9.92 8.04 10.59 10.79 9.14 8.84 

LSD/sig 4.04 ns ns P≤0.01 ns P≤0.01 ns P≤0.01 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

SPIKE LENGTH (mm) 

mean 311.66 283.09 302.50 317.74 323.74 324.58 324.74 327.81 

std deviation 46.28 47.57 43.84 59.86 47.68 71.48 53.46 50.72 

LSD/sig 23.73 P≤0.01 ns ns ns ns ns ns 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

SPIKELET DENSITY (number /100 mm of spike) 

mean 13.91 12.61 15.70 12.72 12.37 12.20 12.49 12.88 

std deviation 3.12 2.74 3.55 3.30 2.59 2.80 2.71 2.86 

LSD/sig 1.31 ns P≤0.01 ns P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 ns 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

SPIKELET LENGTH (mm) 

mean 17.93 17.38 18.20 19.35 16.36 18.42 20.00 17.83 

std deviation 2.35 11.40 2.88 4.04 2.98 3.51 2.43 2.97 

LSD/sig 1.39 ns ns ns ns ns P≤0.01 ns 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 


Perennial Ryegrass 

‘Quartet’ 

Application No: 1998/136 Accepted: 3 Dec 1998. 

Applicant: Wrightson Seeds Ltd, Christchurch, New 

Zealand. 

Agent: Wrightson Seeds (Australia) Pty Ltd , Melbourne, 

VIC. 

Characteristics (Table 29) Plant: late maturing (64.7 days 

to head), colour dark. Stem: length medium (672mm), 

rachis internode length medium (133mm), number of nodes 

medium (3.6). Leaf: vegetative length long (227mm), 

vegetative width narrow (6.67mm), flag leaf length long 

(208mm), flag leaf width broad (8.6mm). Inflorescence: 

spike length medium (267mm), spikelets per spike 

numerous (29.7), spikelet length medium (17.4mm), glume 

length medium (11.6mm) 

Origin and Breeding Induced tetraploidy: 3 cycles of 

selection at the diploid level and 3 cycles of selection at the 

tetraploid level within rye grass plants originating from 

New Zealand old dairy pasture and collected by Wrightson 

Seeds with permission from the farmer. After three cycles of 

selection at the diploid level the plants designated as Lp90- 

108 showed extraordinarily late maturity and tiller density. 

Seedlings of Lp90-108 were then treated with colchicine to 

induce tetraploidy. In the 6th selection cycle, 4 elite families 

were selected from the Lp90-108 – C3 plants to become 

36



‘Quartet’. Selection criteria: diploid selections for 

uniformity, disease resistance, late maturity, dry matter 

yield. Tetraploid selections for tetraploid phenotype, vigour, 

seed yield and rust tolerance. Propagation: by seed. 

Breeder: Wrightson Seeds, Christchurch , New Zealand. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Nevis’ was chosen because it is 

the only tetraploid perennial ryegrass variety of common 

knowledge at the time of application. The parental plants 

were not considered for comparison because of their diploid 

nature. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: ‘Nevis’. Location: 

Lincoln, NZ (Latitude 43º36′ South, elevation 30m), springsummer-autumn 

1999-2000. Conditions: trial conducted in 

field, seedlings propagated in glasshouse then transplanted 

late autumn. Irrigation applied during summer as required. 

Trial design: ten replicates of ten plants per variety, 

arranged in a randomised block design, with 60cm interplant 

spacings. Measurements: from all plants. One 

‘typical’ tiller measured per plant. 



New Zealand 1997 Granted ‘Quartet’ 

South Africa 1999 Applied ‘Quartet’ 

First sold in New Zealand in Mar 1997. First Australian sale 

in 1998. 

Description: Michael Norriss, Wrightson Seeds, Christchurch, New 

Zealand 

Table 29 Lolium varieties 

‘Quartet’ *‘Nevis’ 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF COLOUR RATING (1 = dark, 9 = light) 

6.8 4.9 

____________________________________________________ 

DAYS TO HEADING 

mean 64.7 35.8 


LSD/sig 1.7 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

STEM LENGTH (mm) 

mean 672 728 

std deviation 125 96.4 

LSD/sig 35.5 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

RACHIS INTERNODE LENGTH (mm) 

mean 133 166 


LSD/sig 8.7 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLAG LEAF LENGTH (mm) 

mean 208 188 


LSD/sig 16.0 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLAG LEAF WIDTH (mm) 

mean 8.6 7.3 


LSD/sig 0.6 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

SPIKE LENGTH (mm) 

mean 267 299 


LSD/sig 14.1 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

SPIKELETS PER SPIKE 

mean 29.7 24.2 


LSD/sig 1.8 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

SPIKELET LENGTH (mm) 

mean 17.4 19.7 


LSD/sig 0.9 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

GLUME LENGTH (mm) 

mean 11.6 13.6 


LSD/sig 1.1 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


Apple 

‘Mariri Red’ 

Application No: 1999/134 Accepted: 8 June 1999. 

Applicant: David Easton, Upper Moutere, Nelson, New 

Zealand. 

Agent: AJ Park & Son, Canberra, ACT. 

Characteristics (Table 30, Figure 35) Plant: medium, 

spreading habit, weak to medium vigour, bearing on spurs. 

Dormant one year old shoot: strongly pubescent on upper 

half, medium to thick in diameter and few to very few 

lenticels. Leaf: attitude in relation to shoot upwards, length 

of blade small to medium, ratio length/width large, petiole 

length medium. Flower: beginning of flowering (10%) 

early, unopened flower pink, diameter medium, relative 

position free to touching. Fruit: size medium to large, short 

globose conical, asymmetric, ribbing present, medium 

crowning at calyx, aperture of eye closed to half open, 

length of sepal short to medium, depth of eye basin shallow 

to medium, width of eye basin medium, thickness of stalk 

medium, length of stalk short to medium, bloom of skin 

absent, greasiness of skin absent, ground colour of skin 

yellow green (RHS 150C), amount of overcolour high, 

colour of overcolour brownish red (RHS 46A), solid flush 

(blush), absence or very low russet around stalk cavity, size 

of lenticels medium, firm crisp flesh, flesh colour white 

(RHS 155A), aperture of locules closed, time of maturity 

late. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1986 

edition) 

Origin and Breeding Spontaneous mutation: The variety 

was originated from a limb mutation of ‘Braeburn’ in 1990 

on the applicant’s property in Nelson, New Zealand. The 

mutation was noticed two weeks before harvest because 

two apples on a spur had a higher red colouration than the 

rest of the fruits on the tree. At harvest time the difference 

in colouration was even more pronounced. In summer of 

1991 budwood was taken and budded onto MM106 

rootstock This resulted in 80 trees which were planted on 

the applicant’s property in 1992. From these trees a further 

440 trees were propagated and planted on the applicant’s 

property 1993. These plantings form the initial population 

for the development of ‘Mariri Red’. The unique 

combination of characteristics and distinctive colour have 

remained stable through successive generations of asexual 

37


propagation. ‘Mariri Red’ differs from the parent 

‘Braeburn’ by having a shorter conic shape, brick red 

overcolour which is a full blush. Selection criteria: red fruit 

colour. Propagation: vegetatively on clonal rootstock. 

Breeder: David Easton, Mariri, Nelson, New Zealand. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Lochbuie Red Braeburn’ and 

‘Joburn’ were chosen as comparators as these are the most 

similar varieties of common knowledge. These two varieties 

share the same parentage with the candidate variety. 

‘Lochbuie Red Braeburn’ is a higher coloured mutation of 

‘Braeburn’. ‘Joburn’ is another highly coloured ‘Braeburn’ 

mutation described as “stripe on blush”. Initially ‘Hidala’ 

was also considered but later was excluded because of its 

red overcolour. The original parental variety ‘Braeburn’ was 

excluded because it can be easily differentiated from the 

candidate in fruit characteristics as stated above. In New 

Zealand, ‘Braeburn’ sports are compared with the parent 

and/or other ‘Braeburn’ sports because ‘Braeburn’ is a very 

distinctive apple and there are no other similar varieties. Of 

apple varieties grown in Australia, ‘Bonza’, ‘Cox Orange 

Pippin’, ‘Gala’, ‘Royal Gala’ and ‘Red Delicious’ mature 

earlier than ‘Braeburn’ and its sports and were not 

considered suitable comparators. ‘Pink Lady’ matures later 

and was also rejected. ‘Splendour’ matures in a similar 

period but is not a suitable comparator because it has 

different shape, redder overcolour and a sweeter flavour 

profile. 

Comparative Trial The information is based on overseas 

data sourced from New Zealand Plant Variety Rights Office 

DUS Test Report. Testing was done at HortResearch, 

Havelock North, New Zealand between 1994-96. Where 

possible the characteristics were verified by the qualified 

person. 



New Zealand 1991 Granted ‘Mariri Red’ 

EU 1995 Applied ‘Mariri Red’ 

USA 1996 Applied ‘Mariri Red’ 

Chile 1999 Applied ‘Mariri Red’ 

South Africa 1999 Applied ‘Mariri Red’ 

First sold in New Zealand in May 1995. First Australian 

sale Nil. 

Description: Michael Malone, HortResearch, Havelock North, New 

Zealand. 

‘Joburn’ 

Application No: 1999/133 Accepted: 8 June 1999. 

Applicant: Peter John Dennehy and Peter Harold 

Jackson, Trustees, on behalf of The Joburn Trust, 

Hastings, New Zealand. 

Agent: AJ Park & Son, Canberra, ACT. 

Characteristics (Table 30, Figure 35) Plant: medium, 

spreading habit, medium vigour, predominantly bearing on 

spurs. Dormant one year old shoot: strongly pubescent on 

upper half, medium to thick in diameter, very few to few 

lenticels. Leaf: attitude in relation to shoot upwards, length 

of blade small to medium, ratio length/width large, petiole 

length medium. Flower: beginning of flowering (10%) 

early, unopened flower pink, diameter medium, relative 

position free to touching. Fruit: size medium to large, shape 

flat globose, asymmetric, ribbing present, weak to medium 

crowning at calyx, aperture of eye medium and closed, 

length of sepal medium, depth of eye basin, medium, width 

of eye basin medium, thickness of stalk medium, length of 

stalk short to medium, bloom of skin absent, greasiness of 

skin absent, ground colour of skin yellow (RHS 150C), 

amount of overcolour high, colour of overcolour red, (RHS 

185A), streaked (striped), absence of russet around stalk 

cavity, size of lenticels small, firm crisp flesh, flesh colour 

white (RHS 155A), aperture of locules closed, time of 

maturity late. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 

1986 edition) 

Origin and Breeding Spontaneous mutation: the variety 

was originated from a limb mutation of ‘Braeburn’ in 1985 

in breeder’s property in Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. The 

mutation was identified because two apples on a spur had a 

higher red colouration than the rest of the fruits on the tree. 

The spur was left to grow for two seasons and in Aug 1987, 

graftwood taken and used to top-graft an existing tree on the 

breeder’s property in Hastings, New Zealand. In spring 

1988, budwood was taken from the top-grafted tree to 

produce 200 second generation trees on M793 rootstock. 

These trees were planted in winter 1990. The new variety 

differs from the parent because of a high percentage 

brownish streaked (striped) overcolour. Selection criteria: 

fruit colour. Propagation: vegetatively on clonal rootstock. 

Breeder: Graeme and Karen Jones, Hastings, New Zealand. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Lochbuie Red Braeburn’ and 

‘Mariri Red’ were chosen as comparators as these are the 

most similar varieties of common knowledge. These two 

varieties share the same parentage with the candidate 

variety. ‘Lochbuie Red Braeburn’ is a higher coloured 

mutation of ‘Braeburn’. ‘Mariri Red’ is another highly 

coloured ‘Braeburn’ mutation with solid flush. Initially 

‘Hidala’ was also considered but later was excluded because 

of its red overcolour. The original parental variety 

‘Braeburn’ was excluded because it can be easily 

differentiated from the candidate in fruit characteristics as 

stated above. In New Zealand, ‘Braeburn’ sports are 

compared with the parent and/or other ‘Braeburn’ sports 

because ‘Braeburn’ is a very distinctive apple and there are 

no other similar varieties. Of apple varieties grown in 

Australia, ‘Bonza’, ‘Cox Orange Pippin’, ‘Gala’, ‘Royal 

Gala’ and ‘Red Delicious’ mature earlier than ‘Braeburn’ 

and its sports and were not considered suitable comparators. 

‘Pink Lady’ matures later and was also rejected. 

‘Splendour’ matures in a similar period but is not a suitable 

comparator because it has different shape, redder 

overcolour and a sweeter flavour profile. 



DUS Test Report. Testing was done at HortResearch, 

Havelock North, New Zealand between 1994-96. Where 


person. 

38





New Zealand 1990 Granted ‘Joburn’ 

EU 1995 Applied ‘Joburn’ 

USA 1996 Applied ‘Joburn’ 

Chile 1999 Applied ‘Joburn’ 

South Africa 1999 Applied ‘Joburn’ 

First sold in New Zealand in July 1993. First Australian sale 

Nil. 


Zealand. 

Table 30 Malus varieties 

‘Joburn’ ‘Mariri Red’ *‘Lochbuie Red 

Braeburn’ 

____________________________________________________ 

FRUIT 

shape flat-globose short–globose long-truncate 

(flat-globose) 

amount of overcolour 

high high low 

overcolour brownish-red brownish-red bright red 

type of overcolour 

striped solid flush highly striped 

____________________________________________________ 

Data in parenthesis are from QP’s observations at Havelock North, NZ. 

‘Lochbuie Red Braeburn’ 

Application No: 1997/114 Accepted: 24 June 1997. 

Applicant: William Turner, Christchurch, New Zealand. 

Agent: Spruson & Ferguson, Sydney, NSW. 

Characteristics (Table 31 Figure 36) Plant: medium, 

spreading habit, medium to strong vigour, bearing on spurs 

and shoots. Dormant one year old shoot: medium to thick in 

diameter, medium lenticels, bud size medium. Leaf: attitude 

in relation to shoot upwards, length of blade medium, width 

of blade medium, ratio length/width large, petiole length 

medium. Flower: beginning of flowering (10%) early, 

unopened flower pink, diameter medium, relative position 

overlapping. Fruit: size medium to large, shape long 

truncate (short-globose), asymmetric, ribbing absent, 

medium crowning at calyx, aperture of eye closed, length of 

sepal medium, depth of eye basin medium, width of eye 

basin medium, thickness of stalk medium, length of stalk 

medium, bloom of skin absent, greasiness of skin slight, 

ground colour of skin yellow-green (RHS 150C), amount of 

overcolour high, colour of overcolour bright red, (RHS 

45A), highly striped, weak to medium russet around stalk 

cavity, size of lenticels small, firm crisp flesh, sweetness 

weak, acidity medium to strong, flesh colour white (RHS 

155A) aperture of locules closed, time of maturity late. 

(Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1986 edition) 

(Data in parenthesis are from QP’s observations at 

Havelock North) 

Origin and Breeding Spontaneous mutation: the variety 

was originated in 1985 on an apple tree that had been 

grafted over to the ‘Braeburn’ variety on the applicant’s 

property in Christchurch, New Zealand. Two limbs 

produced apples that were distinctly redder than fruit from 

the rest of the tree. Graftwood from this branch taken in 

1987 was used to produce 27 further trees on MM106 

rootstock. When these trees came into fruiting the highly 

coloured characteristic of the fruit was displayed in all 27 

trees, showing that the mutation was stable. The new variety 

differs from the original parent by having darker red 

coloured fruit with greater degree of overcolour. Selection 

criteria: deep red fruit colour. Propagation: vegetatively on 

clonal rootstock. Breeder: William Turner, Christchurch, 

New Zealand. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Braeburn’ was chosen as the 

comparator because it is the parental variety (original 

source material) and a variety of common knowledge. In 

New Zealand, ‘Braeburn’ sports are compared with the 

parent and/or other ‘Braeburn’ sports because ‘Braeburn’ is 

a very distinctive apple and there are no other similar 

varieties. Of apple varieties grown in Australia, ‘Bonza’, 

‘Cox Orange Pippin’, ‘Gala’, ‘Royal Gala’ and ‘Red 

Delicious’ mature earlier than ‘Braeburn’ and its sports and 

were not considered suitable comparators. ‘Pink Lady’ 

matures later and was also rejected. ‘Splendour’ matures in 

a similar period but is not a suitable comparator because it 

has different shape, redder overcolour and a sweeter flavour 

profile. 



DUS Test Report. Testing was done at Lochbuie Orchard, 

Christchurch, New Zealand between 1986-88. Where 


person. 



New Zealand 1986 Granted ‘Lochbuie Red 

Braeburn’ 

EU 1995 Applied ‘Lochbuie Red 

Braeburn’ 

Chile 1997 Applied ‘Lochbuie Red 

Braeburn’ 

South Africa 1999 Applied ‘Lochbuie Red 

Braeburn’ 

First sold in New Zealand in June 1991. First Australian 

sale Nil. 


Zealand. 

Table 31 Malus varieties 

‘Lochbuie Red *‘Braeburn’ 

Braeburn’ 

____________________________________________________ 

FRUIT 

amount of overcolour medium to high low 

overcolour bright red red 

type of overcolour highly striped striped 

____________________________________________________ 

39



Barrel Medic 

‘Jester’ 


Applicant: South Australian Minister for Primary 

Industries of Adelaide, SA 

Characteristics (Table 32, Figure 45) Plant: mid maturing, 

semi erect. Leaf: brown to purple blotch in the centre of 

each trifoliate leaflet. Blotch size and shape variable. Pod: 

anti-clockwise coil, length 8.1mm (7 to 9.8mm), width 

6.4mm (5.8 to 7.5mm), Seed: 9.7 per pod (8 to 12). Aphid 

Resistance: resistance to both Spotted Alfalfa Aphid (SAA) 

Theriophis trifolii fm maculata and Blue Green Aphid 

(BGA) Acythosiphon kondoi. 

Origin and Breeding Controlled Pollination: [(‘Jemalong’ 

X ‘SA 2927’) X ‘Jemalong’] X ‘Jemalong’. ‘Jester’ was 

produced in a planned crossing program conducted by 

Andrew Lake within SARDI aimed at producing a new 

cultivar with the agronomic characteristics of ‘Jemalong’ 

whilst incorporating resistance to SAA and BGA. SA 2927 

is a source of SAA and BGA resistance of complex origin. 

It has amongst its parentage approximately 12% ‘Cyprus’, 

12% ‘Jemalong’, 25% SA 1499 (the source of BGA 

resistance) and 50% SA 10733. Both ‘Cyprus’ and ‘SA 

10733’ are sources of resistance to SAA. Selection criteria: 

Progeny have been selected from the double backcross that 

retains the ‘Jemalong’ leaf marker and field performance 

and that also carry the resistance genes for SAA and BGA 

from ‘SA 2927’. The final selection was ‘Z914’. 

Propagation: by seed. Breeder: Andrew Lake, SARDI, 

Adelaide, SA. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Jemalong’ was chosen because it 

was used the recurrent parent. It has the same attributes as 

‘Jester’ except for resistance to aphids. ‘Mogul’ A and 

‘Paraggio’ were chosen as they are varieties of common 

knowledge. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Jemalong’, ‘Mogul’ A , 

‘Paraggio’. Location: Urrbrae, Adelaide, SA (Latitude 

34.6s, Longitude 138.36e) Date: winter-spring 1998. 

Conditions: trial conducted in field, plants propagated from 

seed, fertiliser applied at 200kg/ha. Trial design: 4 reps x 20 

plants per rep arranged in a randomised block design. 

Measurements: Flowering times per plant, 20 pod samples 

randomly collected per rep. 

Prior Applications and Sales nil. 

Description: Jeffrey R Hill, SARDI, Urrbrae, Adelaide, SA. 

Table 32 Medicago varieties 

‘Jester’ *‘Jemalong’ *‘Mogul’ A *‘Paraggio’ 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAFLET 

brown to purple blotch (upper surface) 

present present absent absent 

purple flecking (underside) 

rare / rare / dense present 

occasional occasional 

____________________________________________________ 

POD COIL DIRECTION 

(Heyn, 1963) anti- anti- anti- clockwise 

clockwise clockwise clockwise 

____________________________________________________ 

POD LENGTH (mm) 

mean 8.1 8.1 5.7 7.1 

std deviation 0.76 0.63 0.63 0.63 

LSD/sig 0.64 ns P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

SEEDS PER POD 

mean 9.8 9.6 6.0 7.4 

std deviation 1.02 1.23 0.85 0.83 

LSD/sig 1.04 ns P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

SPOTTED ALFALFA APHID (SAA) 

(1 = resistant, 5 = very susceptible) – glasshouse test 

resistant moderately moderately 

susceptible susceptible 

mean 1.0 3.3 2.9 n/a 

____________________________________________________ 

BLUEGREEN APHID RESISTANCE (BGA) 

= resistant, 5 = very susceptible) – glasshouse test 

resistant very resistant 

susceptible 

mean 1.2 5.0 1.2 n/a 

____________________________________________________ 


Lucerne, Alfalfa 

‘Rapide’ 

Application No: 1997/294 Accepted: 12 Nov 1997. 

Applicant: Seedco Australia Co-operative Limited, 

Hilton, SA. 

Characteristics (Table 33, Figure 44) Plant: perennial, 

habit narrow, upright, height medium, very winter active 

(dormancy rating 10). Stem: green, anthocyanin absent, 

internodes medium, pubescent to sparsely pubescent. Leaf: 

trifoliate, central leaflet on pronounced pedicel, leaflet 

oblong-cuneate, sometimes denticulate at summit, 

moderately glabrous lower surface, sparsely glabrous upper. 

Inflorescence: oblong raceme to 30mm in length of 10 to 30 

florets. Flower: blue to (mostly) purple, pea type, standard 

approximately 3mm in length. Seed: typically 4 to 8 borne 

in coiled pod of 3-5 coils to 5mm length, bright yellow to 

khaki, 4 to 500/gm. 

Origin and Breeding Recurrent Phenotypic Selection: 

‘Rapide’ is a 139 plant synthetic variety derived from 

recurrent phenotypic selection for resistance to spotted 

alfalfa aphid. The 139 selections derived from two very 

non-dormant breeding lines which were selected for 

persistence, rate of regrowth and resistance to silverleaf 

whitefly. One of the breeder’s lines was developed from the 

cultivar ‘Hassawi’, while the other (designated WL 86-292) 

had parentage that traces to Pioneer 5929 and WL 605. 

Selection criteria: very high winter activity, increased seed 

yield. Propagation: by seed. Breeder: staff of SeedCo, 

Hilton, SA. 

Choice of Comparators ‘CUF 101’ and ‘Hassawi’ were 

chosen for the comparative trial, as ‘CUF 101’ is a 

benchmark cultivar for highly winter active types such as 

‘Rapide’, and ‘Hassawi’ is the major parent used to develop 

40



‘Rapide’. The other parent, WL 86-292 is a breeding line 

that is quite different to ‘Rapide’. In particular, it is not as 

winter active. The other highly winter active (dormancy 

rating 9) lucerne cultivars of common knowledge, such as 

‘Pioneer L 90’, ‘Sceptre’, ‘Sequel’, Sequel HR’, ‘WL 612’, 

‘Siriver’ were all considered as comparators, but all have 

significantly different pest and disease resistance profiles, 

and were therefore excluded from the trial. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘CUF 101’, ‘Hassawi’. 

Location: Currency Creek 75km SSE of Adelaide, between 

Aug 1999 and Mar 2000. Conditions: trial conducted in the 

field. The soil was a moderately fertile, free draining sandy 

loam of approximately pH 6. The trial was irrigated as 

required throughout the testing period. No chemical or 

fertiliser treatments were used and plots were hand weeded 

as required. Trial design: a randomised complete block with 

4 replicates. Plants were seeded and raised in Jiffy 7 pellets 

in a shadehouse, and then transplanted into the field at 

approximately 5 weeks of age in Sep 1999. Each replicate 

was comprised of 20 plants in 4 rows, with 20 cm between 

plants and 50 cm between rows. Measurements: from all 

plants, or from whole rows as indicated. 


Description: Andrew W.H. Lake, Pristine Forage Technologies, Daw Park, 

SA. 


‘Rapide’ ‘Alpha *‘CUF 101’*‘Hassawi’ 

Express’ 

____________________________________________________ 

AVERAGE DAYS TO FIRST 25% PLANTS FLOWERING – 

from harvest on 2/1/00 

mean 15.95 b 16.15 b 16.55 b 12.95 a 

std deviation 0.46 0.39 0.78 0.50 

(LSD at P≤0.01=0.94) 

____________________________________________________ 

NUMBER OF PLANTS/REP FLOWERING 16 DAYS AFTER 

CUTTING – from harvest on 2/1/00 

mean 9.73 b 7.23 a 6.73 a 11.48 b 

std deviation 0.63 1.57 1.74 0.77 

(LSD at P≤0.01=2.23) 

____________________________________________________ 

NUMBER OF PLANTS/REP WITH MEDIUM OR STRONG 

STEM PUBESCENCE 

(- data quoted is log transformed; ln (x +1)) 

mean 2.10 c 0.58 a 1.31 b 2.36 c 

std deviation 0.179 0.524 0.142 0.193 

(LSD at P≤0.01=0.607) 

____________________________________________________ 

PRESENCE OF PLANTS WITH STRONG STEM 

PUBESCENCE 

present absent very rare present 

(indicative %) 

(~10%) (


5 replicates; each replicate comprising a 15m row with 30 

plants at 50cm spacing between plants. Separate seeded 

rows arranged in 2 replicates also with guard rows. 

Measurements: 60 spaced plants per cultivar were measured 

for plant height 2 weeks after the spring and autumn 

equinoxes, after being cut 2 weeks before the equinoxes; 

plant height was also assessed at full flowering, when 

flower colour was determined on every spaced plant, using 

the terminology of Barnes (1972). 

Anthracnose screening. Trial location: University of 

Queensland, St. Lucia, Sep 1999. Conditions: plants were 

raised in U.C. mix in flats (38 cm x 28 cm x 12 cm) in a 

glasshouse, 3 week old seedlings inoculated with 1 million 

spores/mL conidial suspension (C. trifolii race 1). Trial 

design: randomised complete block with 10 replicates, one 

row of each line (7 per flat) in each replicate. 

Measurements: after 7-10 days incubation all plants (25-30 

per row) assessed for disease on a 1-5 scale (1 and 2 – 

resistant, 3, 4 and 5 – susceptible). 

Phytophthora Root Rot screening. Trial location: QDPI 

Gatton Research Station, QLD, Mar 1999. Conditions: 

plants were assessed 18 months after sowing into a site 

naturally infested with Phytophthora medicaginis and 


which had been heavily irrigated. Trial design: randomised 

complete block with 3 replicates, plot size 5m x 5m, 

established at 200 plants/m2. Twenty plants were randomly 

selected from each plot, dug up with at least 20cm of tap 

root and assessed for disease reaction on a 1-5 scale (1 and 

2 – resistant, 3, 4 and 5 – susceptible). 

Spotted Alfalfa Aphid Screening. Trial location: New South 

Wales Agriculture, Yanco, NSW, May 1997. Conditions: 

plants were grown in soil mix under glasshouse conditions 

for 2 weeks and inoculated with aphids (Therioaphis 

maculata). Trial Design: 6 replicates. Measurements: After 

3 weeks the number of seedlings that developed trifoliate 

leaves was counted. 

Blue-Green Aphid Screening. Trial location: New South 

Wales Agriculture, Tamworth, NSW, Feb 2000. Conditions: 

plants were grown in soil mix under glasshouse conditions 

for 2 weeks and inoculated with aphids (Acyrthosiphon 

kondoi). Trial design: 6 replicates. Measurements: After 3 

weeks the seedlings are assessed as resistant or susceptible. 


Description: Prof. J.A.G. Irwin, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 

QLD. 

‘UQL-1’ *‘Trifecta’ *‘Genesis’ *‘Aurora’ *Hunterfield’ *‘Hunter *‘Quadrella’ 

River’ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

TIME OF BEGINNING OF FLOWERING 

late late medium-late late late n/a n/a 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

FLOWER: PERCENTAGE OF PLANTS WITH VARIEGATED FLOWERS 

Raw mean 16.7 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 n/a n/a 

Transformed mean 23.9 2.1 0.0 5.1 n/a n/a 

(arcsine transformed) 

std deviation 3.79 4.71 0.00 7.15 0.00 n/a n/a 

LSD/sig 5.03 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 n/a n/a 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESISTANCE TO Colletotrichum trifolii (% seedlings resistant) 

Raw mean 29.4 7.3 5.5 8.3 0.9 2.4 13.2 

Transformed mean 32.5 14.5 12.6 14.7 2.99 6.9 20.1 

(arcsine transformed) 

std deviation 7.09 6.65 5.19 8.84 4.82 6.05 7.79 

LSD/sig 5.96 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESISTANCE TO BLUE-GREEN APHIDS (Acyrthosiphon kondoi)(% seedlings resistant) 

mean 31.0 55.9 52.8 63.2 54.1 29.2 n/a 

std deviation 14.38 16.54 5.24 5.06 19.21 22.65 n/a 

LSD/sig 16.35 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 ns n/a 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESISTANCE TO SPOTTED ALFALFA APHIDS (Therioaphis maculata)(% seedlings resistant) 

mean 55.3 35.2 38.2 67.4 n/a 3.7 29.0 

std deviation 15.07 8.29 11.1 12.14 n/a 7.77 11.95 

LSD/sig 16.40 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 ns n/a P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

FIELD RESISTANCE TO PHYTOPHTHORA ROOT ROT (Phytophthora medicaginis)(% plants resistant) 

mean 79.0 40.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

std deviation 15.81 23.79 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

LSD/sig 30.21 P≤0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

% PERSISTENCE AFTER 27 MONTHS AT GATTON RESEARCH STATION 

mean 46.7 37.1 42.2 n/a n/a 41.7 n/a 

std deviation 8.92 4.99 11.06 n/a n/a 8.31 n/a 

*LSD/sig ns ns ns n/a n/a ns n/a 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Data given for UQL-1 is from gen 2 in all cases. 

42




Olearia 

‘Little Smokie’ 

Application No: 1999/069 Accepted: 26 March 1999. 

Applicant: George A Lullfitz, Wanneroo, WA. 

Characteristics (Table 35, Figure 21) Plant: habit compact, 

much branched, bushy, height short (0.7 – 0.9m), width 

medium (1m), branches slightly weeping. Stem: hoary and 

ashen grey, internodes short, angle of upper branches to 

stem 50°. Leaf: alternate, narrow obovate, length 10-12 

mm, width 3-4 mm, hoary and ashen grey. Inflorescence: 

heads on short leafy shoots. Flower: florets pale lemon. 

Origin and Breeding Seedling selection: from O. axillaris. 

Selection criteria: small compact bushy habit, smaller leaf 

size and uniform leaf colour. These characters are distinct 

from the known cultivated forms, which have a more erect 

habit with larger and more glabrous leaves. Propagation: 

cuttings through four generations were found to be stable 

and uniform. Breeder: George Lullfitz, Wanneroo, WA. 

Choice of Comparator The comparator chosen was the 

normally cultivated ‘short’ form of O. axillaris. Other forms 

were not considered for the comparative trial because the 

candidate is clearly distinguishable by its dwarf plant 

height. No other varieties of common knowledge have been 

identified. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: ‘Short’ form of O. 

axillaris. Location: Lullfitz Nursery, Wanneroo, WA 

(Latitude 31º58′ S, Longitude 115º49′ E, elevation 35m) 

winter 1999 - autumn 2000. Conditions: trial conducted in 

open nursery conditions, plants propagated from cutting in 

plug trays, plants potted in 130mm pots with soil-less 

potting mix (pine bark sawdust base), nutrition maintained 

with slow release fertilisers, pest and disease treatments 

applied as required, overhead sprinkler watering. Trial 

design: twelve pots of each variety arranged in plastic trays 

(3 of each variety per tray) and located on a mesh bench 40 

cm from the ground. Measurements: two leaf samples were 

taken from each plant, chosen from mature subtending leaf 

of upper stem at random. 


First sold in Australia in spring 1999. No overseas sales. 

Description: Robert Lullfitz , Duncraig, WA 

Table 35 Olearia varieties 

‘Little Smokie’ *Olearia 

axillaris 

‘short’ form 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT CHARACTERISTICS 

habit 

compact spreading upright taller 

height short tall 

(0.7-0.9m) (1 to 2m) 

width medium medium to large 

(1m) 

(1 to 1.5m) 

angle of axillary 45° to 55° 30° to 40° 

shoots 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF COLOUR/SURFACE 

hoary ashen grey 

both surfaces 

hoary ashen grey 

upper surface 

more glabrous 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH (mm) 

mean 11.2 17.3 


LSD/sig 0.46 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 4.1 4.7 


LSD/sig 0.23 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


Ivy leaved Pelargonium 

‘Pentom’ 


Applicant: Elsner pac Jungpflanzen, Dresden, Germany. 

Agent: Geranium Cottage Nursery, Galston, NSW. 

Characteristics (Table 36, Figure 13) Plant: cascading 

mound, free branching, free flowering, height low-medium. 

Stem: trailing, green. Leaf: reniform, pedately lobed, 

slightly pubescent. Inflorescence: umbellate, upright. 

Flower: double, petaloid stamens present, diameter medium 

(average 50.4mm), petals oblanceolate-spathulate, margin 

entire, upper petal striped, basal white zone absent; lower 

petal markings absent, inner petal markings absent; pedicel 

swelling present, upper and lower petal colour RHS 187B 

(margin and middle) and RHS 61A (lower side). (Note: all 

RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1995 edition.) 

Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination: hybridisation 

among parents of pollination group E-17 in a planned 

breeding program in Dresden, Germany in 1994. The 

parents are proprietary breeding lines within the breeding 

program, which are characterised by velvet red flower 

colour. Following hybridisation, embryo rescue took place 

and seedling number P-7161 was chosen in 1995 on the 

basis of flower colour. Selection criteria: dark red double 

flower. Propagation: tissue culture of elite stock and 

vegetative cutting thereafter. ‘Pentom’ has been found to be 

uniform and stable through many generations. Breeder: 

Elsner pac Jungpflanzen, Dresden, Germany. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Granilit’, ‘Thornland’s 

Burgundy’ and ‘Mexican Beauty’ were initially considered 

for the comparative trial as these are similar varieties of 

common knowledge. ‘Granilit’ was excluded because it has 

a lighter flower colour, more conspicuous leaf zonation, less 

flowers and a more compact growth habit. ‘Thornland’s 

Burgundy’ and ‘Mexican Beauty’ were chosen for their 

similar growth habit and leaves. The parents are noncommercial 

breeding lines and therefore were excluded. No 


identified. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Thornland’s Burgundy’, 

‘Mexican Beauty’. Location: Galston, spring 1999 – 

summer 2000. Conditions: plants were raised in a standard 

potting mixture in 140mm pots under glass. Trial design: 

43


plants arranged in a completely randomised design. 

Measurements: taken from 10 specimens selected from 10 

plants. 


No prior applications. First sold in Australia in Jan 1997. 

Description: Ian Paananen, Crop & Nursery Services Central Coast, 

NSW. 

‘Penvel’ 


Applicant: Elsner pac Jungpflanzen, Dresden, Germany. 

Agent: Geranium Cottage Nursery, Galston, NSW. 

Characteristics (Table 36, Figure 13) Plant: cascading 

mound, free branching, free flowering, height low-medium. 

Stem: trailing, green. Leaf: reniform, pedately lobed, 

slightly pubescent. Inflorescence: umbellate, upright. 

Flower: double, petaloid stamens present, diameter medium 

(average 51.3mm), petals oblanceolate-spathulate, margin 

entire, upper petal striped, basal white zone absent; lower 

petal markings absent, inner petal markings absent; pedicel 

swelling present, upper and lower petal colour more intense 

than RHS 46A (margin and middle) and RHS 58B (lower 

side). (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1995 

edition.) 

Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination: hybridisation 

among parents of pollination group E-6 in a planned 

breeding program in Dresden, Germany in 1994. The 

parents are proprietary breeding lines within the breeding 

program, which are characterised by red flower colour. 

Following hybridisation, embryo rescue took place and 

seedling number P-7160 was chosen in 1995 on the basis of 

flower colour. Selection criteria: dark red double flower. 

Propagation: tissue culture of elite stock and vegetative 

cutting thereafter. ‘Penvel’ has been found to be uniform 

and stable through many generations. Breeder: Elsner pac 

Jungpflanzen, Dresden, Germany. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Granilit’, ‘Thornland’s 

Burgundy’ and ‘Mexican Beauty’ were initially considered 

for the comparative trial as these are similar varieties of 

common knowledge. ‘Granilit’ was excluded because it has 

a lighter flower colour, more conspicuous leaf zonation, less 

flowers and a more compact growth habit. ‘Thornland’s 

Burgundy’ and ‘Mexican Beauty’ were chosen for their 

similar growth habit and leaves. The parents are noncommercial 

breeding lines and therefore were excluded. No 


identified. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Thornland’s Burgundy’, 

‘Mexican Beauty’. Location: Galston, spring 1999 – 

summer 2000. Conditions: plants were raised in a standard 

potting mixture in 140mm pots under glass. Trial design: 

plants arranged in a completely randomised design. 

Measurements: taken from 10 specimens selected from 10 

plants. 


No prior applications. First sold in Australia in Jan 1997. 

Description: Ian Paananen, Crop & Nursery Services Central Coast, 

NSW. 

Table 36 Pelargonium varieties 

‘Pentom’ ‘Penvel’ *‘Thornland’s *‘Mexican 

Burgundy’ 

Beauty’ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLANT HEIGHT (cm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 3.1 

mean 12.1 ab 15 a 10.7 b 10.7 b 

std deviation 2.6 3.7 1.8 2.4 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLANT WIDTH (cm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 8.0 

mean 23.1 b 24.5 b 28.9 ab 38.3 a 

std deviation 10.4 4.6 6.9 4.7 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STEM THICKNESS (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 0.51 

mean 4.6 b 5.6 b 8.0 b 6.4 a 


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 6.9 

mean 43.8 a 45.9 a 39.9 ab 34.8 b 


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF WIDTH (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 11.0 

mean 61.5 ab 73.5 a 59.3 b 58.0 b 

std deviation 5.6 6.3 9.3 14.6 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF CHARACTERISTICS 

base open closed variable wide open opento 

partial overlapping closed 

zone on upper side present absent absent absent 

zone conspicuousness weak n/a n/a n/a 

zone upper colour reddish-brown n/a n/a n/a 

44



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

NUMBER OF INFLORESCENCES LSD (P≤0.01) = 1.9 

mean 4.6 ab 5.6 b 8.0 a 6.4 b 


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INFLORESCENCE DIAMETER (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 10.2 

mean 89.8 ab 100.6 a 84.3 b 99.1 a 

std deviation 7.9 8.3 9.1 10.5 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PEDUNCLE LENGTH (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 24.8 

mean 152.2 ab 165.6 a 133.9 b 164.4 a 

std deviation 25.7 16.8 17.6 25.2 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

FLOWER NUMBER PER INFLORESCENCE LSD (P≤0.01) = 5.3 

mean 9.3 b 23.7 a 9.0 b 13.3 b 


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

UPPER PETAL WIDTH (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 1.4 

mean 14.0 b 17.5 a 14.7 b 16.7 a 


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

UPPER PETAL COLOUR (RHS) 

upper side margin 187B 46A, but more 46A, but darker 46A, but more 

intense 

intense 

upper side middle 187B 46A, but more 46A, but darker 46A, but more 

intense 

intense 

lower side 61A 58B 58B 58B 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

UPPER PETAL MARKINGS 

conspicuousness weak strong strong strong 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LOWER PETAL COLOUR (RHS) 

upper side margin 187B 46A, but more 46A, but darker 46A, but more 

intense 

intense 

upper side middle 187B 46A, but more 46A, but darker 46A, but more 

intense 

intense 

lower side 61A 58B 58B 58B 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

NUMBER OF PETALS (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 1.8 

mean 15.4 a 11.9 b 17.3 a 11.4 b 


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PEDICEL LENGTH (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 4.2 

mean 20.1 b 27.6 a 19.7 b 30.0 a 


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PEDICEL 

colour (mid third) dark red & green light red & green dark red & green dark red & green 

swelling present present absent present 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Mean values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P≤0.01 according to an S-N-K test. 

45



Pentas 

‘Blushing Pearl’ 

Application No: 1999/063 Accepted 25th Mar 1999. 

Applicant: Duncan Buchanan, Anstead, QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 37 , Figure 19) Plant: more or less 

erect, dense evergreen, soft-wooded, pubescent shrub. Leaf: 

opposite. Inflorescence: terminal panicle. Flower shape: 

globular. Flower colour: outer RHS 27D, inner RHS 39D. 

Origin and breeding: Spontaneous mutation: originated as 

a cutting sport in a batch of normal Pentas lanceolata 

cuttings. Selection criteria: globular open flowers. It has 

been propagated through five generations and remained 

stable. Propagation: by cuttings. Breeder: Sheila 

Thompson, Anstead, QLD. 

Choice of Comparator The common form of the species 

Pentas lanceolata was chosen because it is the most similar 

variety of common knowledge. ‘Blushing Pearl’ resembles 

no other variety because of the unique globular flowers. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: common form of Pentas 

lanceolata. Location: Troika Nursery, Anstead, QLD 1 Dec 

1999 to 12 Mar 2000. Conditions: plants of both varieties 

were raised from cuttings and planted up in 140mm pots 

placed on mesh benches in a shade house with overhead 

watering. Trial design: 30 plants of each variety were 

arranged in 3 randomised replicated blocks. Measurements: 

from 15 plants of each variety. 



Table 37 Pentas varieties 

‘Blushing Pearl’ *Pentas lanceolata 

common form 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH (mm) first leaf below inflorescence 

mean 64.53 34.00 

std deviation 13.86 17.49 

LSD/sig 10.04 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

INFLORESCENCE WIDTH (mm) 

mean 25.87 9.20 


LSD/sig 4.90 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LENGTH OF FLORAL TUBE (mm) 

mean 21.13 16.20 


LSD/sig 1.67 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

BUD WIDTH (mm) 

mean 6.20 3.47 


LSD/sig 0.45 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

OPEN FLOWER WIDTH (mm) 

mean 7.80 17.87 


LSD/sig 1.34 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


Petunia 

‘Cobink’ 



Institute, Cobbitty NSW. 

Characteristics (Table 38, Figure 4) Plant: perennial, 

cascading compact habit, many branches. Stem: medium 

thick, medium internode length, anthocyanin absent, 

medium pubescence, flowers at tip. Leaf: medium length, 

medium width, elliptic, anthocyanin absent, apex acute, 

adaxial surface concave, blistering absent, pubescence: 

adaxial weak, abaxial absent, margins present. Epicalyx: 

absent. Calyx: pubescence medium, apex acuminate, 

medium length and width, ovate, semi-erect upwards 

curving. Flower: double, size medium, corolla lobe semierect, 

peduncle medium length and thickness. Corolla lobe: 

rounded, semi-erect, undulation present. Corolla: adaxial 

colour (RHS 73D and 150D), abaxial colour (RHS 150D), 

pubescence: adaxial absent, abaxial weak, funnel shaped, 

tube length and diameter medium. Petiole: medium length. 

Style: length very short, light green. Stamen: very short 

filament, Anther: white. Ovule: large, distorted, 

anthocyanin absent. Time of flowering: medium. (Note: all 


Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination: X96.410.1 x 

pollen parent ‘Silk Road’. Hybridisation took place at 

Baulkham Hills, NSW, in 1994. Selection criteria: seedling 

was chosen in 1996 on the basis of flower form and colour, 

and plant form. Propagation: vegetative through six 

generations. Breeder: Mr G N Brown, Baulkham Hills, 

NSW. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Adventurer’ A and ‘Traveller’ A 

were chosen as most similar varieties of common 

knowledge. No other similar varieties have been identified. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: ‘Adventurer’ A and 

‘Traveller’ A . Location: Plant Breeding Institute, Cobbitty, 

NSW (Latitude 34º 00′ S longitude 150º 41′ E, elevation 

70m), Dec 1999 – May 2000 with observations taken on 7 

May 2000. Conditions: trial conducted in plastic pots in a 

greenhouse environment at 25˚C, 12 hour day and 18˚C 

during night. All plants were propagated from cuttings, 

rooted cuttings planted in 100mm plastic pots filled with a 

well aerated standard soilless potting mix; the plants were 

watered by trickle irrigation and were not treated with 

chemicals nor trimmed in any way, nutrition maintained 

with slow release fertilisers. Trial design: 20 plants each of 

‘Cobink’, ‘Adventurer’ and ‘Traveller’ arranged in a 

completely random design. Measurements were taken at 

random from ten plants of each variety. 



EU 1999 Applied ‘Cobink’ 

USA 1999 Applied ‘Cobink’ 

First Australian sale Mar 1998. 

Description: J. D. Oates and G. N. Brown, The University of Sydney, 

Plant Breeding Institute, Cobbitty, NSW. 

46



Table 38 Petunia varieties 

‘Cobink’ ‘Traveller’ A ‘Adventurer’ A 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 2.084 1.884 1.863 

std deviation 0.148 0.098 0.112 

LSD/sig 0.04 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 82.53 68.985 99.033 

std deviation 2.908 2.818 2.034 

LSD/sig 1.02 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER COLOUR-Fully open (RHS, 1995) 

adaxial 66D-73D 82A 74A 

abaxial 73D 88D 77A 

____________________________________________________ 

COROLLA TUBE COLOUR (RHS, 1995) 

abaxial 150D 92D 77A 

____________________________________________________ 

Pisum sativum 

Field Pea 

‘Morgan PSE 23’ 

Application No: 1999/191 Accepted: 9 Jun 2000. 


the State of New South Wales, Orange, NSW and 


ACT. 

Agent: Hart Bros Seeds Pty Ltd, Junee, NSW. 

Characteristics (Table 39, Figure 40) Plant: dun type field 

pea suitable for milling or stock feed, height tall, time of 

flowering late, maturity late, anthocyanin present. Foliage: 

colour green. Leaf: semi-leafless. Stipule: present, normal. 

Flower: colouration of wing reddish purple, intensity strong 

RHS 187B. Colouration of standard reddish purple, 

intensity strong RHS 74B. Colouration of keel yellowish 

green RHS 150C-D. Pod: shape straight or weak, concave 

curvature, colour medium, anthocyanin present, shape of 

distal part blunt. Seed: shape irregular, size medium, 

cotyledon colour yellow, dimpled, testa colour green brown 

and speckled, black colour of hilum absent. (Note: all RHS 

colour chart numbers refer to 1995 edition). 

Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination: ‘Morgan PSE 

23’ was developed from a complex crossing program 

Dun/PS386//Victoria Dippes Gelbe/Canners multipod/Dun. 

The final cross was made in 1983 and was given the 

breeding identification name: 83-374. A pedigree/bulk 

breeding scheme was followed in selecting the variety. The 

line was reselected 2 times between 1983 and 1991 and 

renamed 83-374P*46-1. The line was promoted to variety 

testing in Victoria and nationwide evaluation in the 

Interstate Pea Variety Testing Program in 1990 as PSE23. In 

1996 the line was bulked up for commercial release by 

NSW agriculture. Selection criteria: grain yield, increased 

plant vigour. Propagation: by seed. Breeder: Dr G Berry and 

Dr J B Brouwer, VIDA, Horsham, Department of Natural 

Resources and the Environment, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Glenroy’ was used as the 

comparator in the comparative trial. This is the most similar 

variety of common knowledge. ‘Glenroy’ and ‘Morgan PSE 

23’ are dun seeded, tall, semi-leafless varieties. Other dun 

seeded varieties ‘Dundale’, ‘Dun’, ‘King’ A , ‘Magnet’ A , 

‘Paravic’ A , ‘Alma’ were included in the trial but not used as 

comparators for detailed measurements as they clearly 

differ in leaf type, seed traits, internode length. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: ‘Glenroy’. Location: 

Horsham, VIC. Jun-Dec 1998. Conditions: plants were 

raised in cracking black soils in open beds. Trial design: 

randomised complete block design. There were 4 replicate 

blocks, which consisted of variety plots. Each plot was 

sown as a plot 5 rows x 7m in length. The rows were 30cm 

apart. Sowing rate was 75 plants per square metre. 

Measurements: 10 specimens per replication selected 

randomly from each plot. 


Description: Antonio Leonforte, Agriculture Victoria, Victorian Institute 

for Dryland Agriculture, Horsham, VIC. 

Table 39 Pisum varieties 

‘Morgan PSE 23’ *‘Glenroy’ 

____________________________________________________ 

PETIOLE LENGTH (FROM SECOND FERTILE NODE) (mm) 

mean 66.99 78.02 


LSD/sig 3.78 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

STIPULE WIDTH (FROM SECOND FERTILE NODE) (mm) 

mean 36.50 41.44 


LSD/sig 2.25 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

TIME OF FLOWERING (30% OF PLANTS HAVE ONE 

FLOWER OPEN) (Days from sowing) 

mean 114 111 


LSD/sig 2.27 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

SEED WEIGHT (100 HARVESTED DRY SEEDS) (g) 

mean 21.00 27.25 


LSD/sig 1.553 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER: INTENSITY OF REDDISH PURPLE 

COLOURATION OF STANDARD (RHS, 1995) 

74B 

74C-D 

strong 

medium 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER: INTENSITY OF REDDISH PURPLE 

COLOURATION OF WING (RHS, 1995) 

187B 

71A 

strong 

medium 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER: INTENSITY COLOURATION OF KEEL 

(RHS, 1995) 

150C-D 150C-D 

yellow green yellow green 

anthocyanin spots anthocyanin spots 

present 

absent 

____________________________________________________ 

SEED: VIOLET PINK SPOTS ON TESTA 

present 

absent 

____________________________________________________ 

RESISTANCE TO Erysipe pisi Syd. 

absent 

present 

____________________________________________________ 

47


‘Snowpeak’ 

Application No: 1999/210 Accepted: 3 Aug 1999. 

Applicant: Agriculture Victoria Services Pty Ltd, 

Attwood, VIC and 


ACT. 

Characteristics (Table 40, Figure 39) Plant: white field pea 

suitable for milling or stock feed, height semi-dwarf, time 

of flowering early, maturity early (determinate), 

anthocyanin absent. Foliage: colour green. Leaf: semileafless. 

Stipule: present, normal. Flower: colour standard 

white. Pod: shape straight or weak, concave curvature, 

colour medium, anthocyanin absent, shape of distal part 

blunt. Seed: shape spherical, size medium, cotyledon colour 

yellow, smooth, testa; colour white, black colour of hilum 

absent. 

Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination: ‘Snowpeak’ 

was developed from a complex crossing program. The final 

cross (Greenfeast/MU38//Marx/Dun/PS386//Viktoriadippes 

gelbe/3/Dun/L58//Viktoria-dippes-gelbe) was made 

in 1986 and was given the breeding identification name: 86- 

168. A pedigree/bulk breeding scheme was followed in 

selecting the variety. The line was reselected 4 times 

between 1986 and 1993 and given the name 86-168P*-3-1- 

1-2. In 1996, the line was reselected from 100 progeny 

populations to ensure homogeneity for plant and seed traits 

and absence of pea seed borne mosaic virus. The line was 

promoted to variety testing in Victoria and nationwide 

evaluation in the Interstate Pea Variety Trial Program in 

1993 as PSI5. In 1997, the line was bulked via 100 single 

plant populations to ensure absence of pea seed borne 

mosaic virus and purity of the line. In 1998, the line was 

bulked over spring for commercialisation. Selection 

criteria: grain yield, lodging resistance, grain quality. 

Propagation: by seed. Breeder: Dr J B Brouwer, Mr W 

Burton, Mr T Leonforte, VIDA, Horsham, Department of 

Natural Resources and the Environment, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Mukta’ and ‘Santi’ were used as 

comparators in the comparative trial. They are the most 

similar varieties of common knowledge. The comparators 

and ‘Snowpeak’ are all white seeded, semi-dwarf, semileafless 

varieties. Other white seeded varieties ‘Laura’ and 

‘Bohatyr’ were included in the trial but were not used as 

comparators for detailed measurements, as they clearly 

differ in leaf type and plant height. The varietal parents 

were not considered for inclusion in the trial because 

‘Snowpeak’ is distinguished clearly by flower traits, seed 

traits, internode length and leaf type. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Mukta’, ‘Santi’. 

Location: Horsham, VIC, Jun-Dec 1998. Conditions: plants 

were raised in cracking black soils in open beds. Trial 

design: randomised complete block design. There were 4 

replicate blocks, which consisted of variety plots. Each plot 

was sown as a plot 5 rows x 7m in length. The rows were 

30cm apart. Sowing rate was 75 plants per square metre. 

Measurements: 10 specimens per replication selected 

randomly from each plot. 





Table 40 Pisum varieties 

‘Snowpeak’ *‘Mukta’ *‘Santi’ 

____________________________________________________ 

PETIOLE LENGTH (FROM SECOND FERTILE NODE) (mm) 

mean 72.06 64.37 76.93 


LSD/sig 4.30 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT HEIGHT (AT 30% FLOWERING) (cm) 

mean 29.55 22.72 23.60 


LSD/sig 1.10 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

STIPULE WIDTH (FROM SECOND FERTILE NODE) (mm) 

mean 40.63 30.10 38.00 


LSD/sig 2.51 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

TIME OF FLOWERING (30% OF PLANTS HAVE ONE 

FLOWER OPEN) (Days from sowing) 

early late medium 

mean 103 114 109 


LSD/sig 2.27 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

SEED WEIGHT (100 HARVESTED DRY SEEDS) (g) 

mean 26.53 27.53 29.07 


LSD/sig 0.649 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

SEED: TIME OF MATURITY 

early late medium 

____________________________________________________ 

SEED: SHAPE 

spherical ovoid spherical 

____________________________________________________ 

SEED: COLOUR OF TESTA 

white orange – white 

white 

____________________________________________________ 

RESISTANCE TO Erysiphe pisi Syd. 

absent present absent 

____________________________________________________ 


Pittosporum 

‘Cathy’ 


Applicant: Alfred Bullock, Bentleigh, VIC. 

Agent: Greenhills Propagation Nursery, Tynong, VIC. 

Characteristics (Table 41, Figure 25) Plant: habit small 

shrub, height short, compact. Stem: hirsute. Leaf: mean 

length 24.12mm, mean width 16.04mm, shape elliptical, 

apex acute, base attenuate, margin weakly undulating, leaf 

colours; edge new growth yellow-green (RHS 145C), centre 

new growth green (RHS 137C), edge mature growth 

yellow-green (RHS 145C), centre mature growth green 

48



(RHS 137A), speckles present. (Note: All RHS colour chart 

numbers refer to 1995 edition.) 


selected sport from Pittosporum ralphii var garnettii in 

1996 on the applicant’s property in Bentleigh, VIC. The 

sport is characterised by unique leaf variegation. Cuttings 

were taken in 1997 and grown on for observation for the 

conformation of uniformity and stability. Selection criteria: 

leaf variegation. Propagation: vegetative through at least 3 

generations. Breeder: Alfred Bullock, Bentleigh, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators Pittosporum ralphii var garnettii 

was chosen because it is the parental material from which 

the candidate variety was selected, and is also the most 

similar known variety of common knowledge. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: Pittosporum ralphii var 

garnettii. Location: South Cranbourne, VIC, spring-autumn 

1999-2000. Conditions: trial conducted in open, plants 

propagated from cutting, rooted cuttings planted into 

200mm pots filed with soilless potting mix (pine bark base), 

nutrition maintained with slow release fertilisers, pest and 

disease treatments applied as required. Trial design: ten pots 

of each variety arranged in a completely randomised design. 

Measurements: from thirty plants at random. One sample 

per plant. 



Table 41 Pittosporum varieties 

‘Cathy’ *P. ralphii var 

garnettii 

____________________________________________________ 


mean 16.04 17.51 


LSD/sig 1.02 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF SPECKLES present absent 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF SHAPE elliptical oval-orbicular 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF BASE attenuate truncate-obtuse 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF APEX acute acute-obtuse 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF MARGIN weakly not undulating 

undulating 

____________________________________________________ 

DENSITY OF FOLIAGE 

dense 

medium sparse 

____________________________________________________ 

STEM hirsute glabrous 

____________________________________________________ 

Pittosporum tenuifolium 

Pittosporum 

‘PTGP1’ 


Applicant: All Grow Wholesale Nursery, Cranbourne 

South, VIC. 


Characteristics (Table 42, Figure 24). Plant: habit large 

shrub, height very tall, density dense. Leaf: mean length 

13.37mm, mean width 9.69mm, shape ovate-oblong, apex 

obtuse, base rounded, margin not undulating, variegated, 

edge colour white (RHS 155A), centre colour green (RHS 

137B). (Note: All RHS colour chart numbers refer to 1995 

edition). 


selected sport from Pittosporum ‘Green Pillar’ in 1996 on 

the applicant’s property in Cranbourne South, VIC. The 




leaf variegation and shape. Propagation: vegetative through 

at least 3 generations. Breeder: Adriana Allison, 

Cranbourne South, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators ‘PTSS1’, ‘PTSS2’, ‘Sunburst’ and 

‘Stirling Mist’ were chosen as they are the most similar 

varieties of common knowledge in terms of leaf variegation. 

The parental variety ‘Green Pillar’ was excluded because it 

is clearly distinct by its non-variegated leaves. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘PTSS1’, ‘PTSS2’, 

‘Sunburst’, ‘Stirling Mist’. Location: South Cranbourne, 

VIC, spring-autumn 1999-2000. Conditions: trial 

conducted in open, plants propagated from cutting, rooted 

cuttings planted into 200mm pots filed with soilless potting 

mix (pine bark base), nutrition maintained with slow release 

fertilisers, pest and disease treatments applied as required. 

Trial design: ten pots of each variety arranged in a 

completely randomised design. Measurements: from thirty 




‘PTSS1’ 


Applicant: All Grow Wholesale Nursery, Cranbourne 

South, VIC. 



shrub, height medium-tall, density medium sparse. Leaf: 

mean length 23.60mm, mean width 14.94mm, shape ovate, 

apex acute, base acute, margin medium undulating, 

variegated, edge colour yellow-green (RHS 154C), centre 

colour green (RHS 137B). (Note: All RHS colour chart 



selected sport from Pittosporum ‘Silver Sheen’ in 1996 on 

the applicant’s property in Cranbourne South, VIC. The 





at least 3 generations. Breeder: Adriana Allison, 

Cranbourne South, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators ‘PTGP1’, ‘PTSS2’, ‘Sunburst’ 

and ‘Stirling Mist’ were chosen as they are the most similar 

49



The parental variety ‘Silver Sheen’ was excluded because it 


Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘PTGP1’, ‘PTSS2’, 












‘PTSS2’ 


Applicant: Greenhills Propagation Nursery, Tynong, 

VIC. 


shrub, height tall, density sparse. Leaf: mean length 

20.80mm, mean width 14.05mm, shape oval-ovate, apex 

acute, base acute, margin not undulating, variegated, edge 

colour green (RHS 137C), centre colour yellow-green 

(RHS 151C). (Note: All RHS colour chart numbers refer to 

1995 edition). 


selected sport from Pittosporum ‘Silver Sheen’ in 1997 on 

the applicant’s property in Tynong, VIC. The sport is 

characterised by unique leaf variegation. Cuttings were 

taken in 1997 and grown on for observation for the 



at least 3 generations. Breeder: Robert Harrison, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators ‘PTGP1’, ‘PTSS1’, ‘Sunburst’ 

and ‘Stirling Mist’ were chosen as they are the most similar 


The parental variety ‘Silver Sheen’ was excluded because it 


Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘PTGP1’, ‘PTSS1’, 











Description: Mark Lunghusen, Croydon, VIC 

Table 42 Pittosporum varieties 

‘PTSS1’ ‘PTGP1’ ‘PTSS2’ *Sunburst’ *‘Stirling Mist’ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH (mm) LSD (P≤0.01)=3.86 

mean 23.60 b 13.37 c 20.80 a 20.23 a 18.84 a 

std deviation 3.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.66 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF WIDTH (mm) LSD(P≤0.01)=1.02 

mean 14.94 a 9.69 e 14.05 b 13.16 c 11.43 d 

std deviation 1.24 0.56 0.73 1.13 0.55 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO LSD(P≤0.01)=0.01 

mean 1.58 a 1.38 b 1.48 a 1.54 a 1.65 a 

std deviation 0.14 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.11 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF EDGE COLOUR (RHS, 1995) 

yellow-green white green green yellow 

154C 155A 137C 143A 4D 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF CENTRE COLOUR (RHS, 1995) 

green green yellow-green yellow-green green 

137B 137B 151C 144A 137A 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF CENTRE VEIN COLOUR (RHS, 1995) 

n/a n/a n/a yellow-green n/a 

149D 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF SHAPE 

ovate oval-oblong oval-ovate oval-ovate oval-ovate 

50



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF BASE SHAPE 

acute rounded acute acute acute 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LEAF APEX SHAPE 

acute obtuse acute acute acute 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

MARGIN 

medium not not weakly strongly 

undulating undulating undulating undulating undulating 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HEIGHT 

medium very tall short tall 

tall 

tall 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

FOLIAGE DENSITY 

medium-sparse dense sparse medium-dense medium-sparse 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Note: mean values followed by the same letter code are not significantly different at P≤0.01 level according to DMRT. 


Fanflower, Scaevola 

‘Rhapsody’ 


Applicant: R.W. Rother, Emerald, VIC. 

Agent: Tony Kebblewhite t/as Florabundance Wholesale 

Nursery, Verrierdale, QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 43, Figure 15) Plant: semi-erect, 

compact low growing perennial, width to 800mm, 

maximum height 200mm. Leaf: mean length 88.12mm, 

mean width 27.35mm, shape oblanceolate, margins dentate, 

mature leaf colour green (RHS 137A). Flower: fan shaped, 

petal main colour violet (RHS 88C), closer to eye lighter 

violet (RHS 88B), eye colour yellow (RHS 3A), pistil 

colour yellow (RHS 3C), base of petal strongly overlapped, 

stripes present. (Note: all RHS colour chart numbers refer 

to 1995 edition.) 

Origin and Breeding Seedling selection: originated from a 

batch of seedling of Scaevola aemula at applicant’s 

property in Emerald, VIC. The parental material is 

characterised by spreading growth habit and the seedling 

was selected for its semi-erect growth habit. The seedling 

was raised and trialed over a 3 year period. Selection 

criteria: growth habit, flower size and flower colour. 

Propagation: vegetatively propagated over 5 generations to 

establish uniformity and stability. Breeder: R.W. Rother, 

Emerald, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Sweet Serenade’ was chosen as it 

has the same parentage with similar growth habit. ‘Purple 

Fanfare’ was chosen because it is the most similar variety of 

common knowledge on the basis of flower colour. Initially, 

‘Summertimes Blues’ A , ‘Blue Fandango’ A , ‘Blue Wonder’ 

and ‘Petite Cascade’, were also considered as potential 

comparators. However, ‘Summertimes Blues’ A was 

excluded because it is a summer flowering plant and the 

candidate is a winter-spring flowering plant. Moreover, 

‘Summertimes Blues’ A has violet-blue (RHS 90C) flower 

colour. ‘Blue Fandango’ A was excluded because of its 

upright growth habit. ‘Blue Wonder’ was excluded because 

of its spreading growth habit. ‘Petite Cascade’ was excluded 

because of its cushion-like growth habit. The parental 

material was not included because of differences in growth 

habit as stated above. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Sweet Serenade’, 

‘Purple Fanfare’. Location: Florabundance Wholesale 

Nursery, Verrierdale, QLD, Jul-Oct 1999. Conditions: 

plants from cuttings were grown in 200mm pots under full 

sun conditions in composted pinebark and sand media, with 

Osmocote® as the primary fertiliser. Standard pest and 


plants of each variety arranged in randomised rows. 

Measurements: taken from all trial plants. 


No prior applications. First sold in Australia in Jul 1999. 

Description: Tony Kebblewhite, Verrierdale, QLD. 

‘Sweet Serenade’ 


Applicant: R.W. Rother, Emerald, VIC. 

Agent: Tony Kebblewhite t/as Florabundance Wholesale 

Nursery, Verrierdale, QLD. 

Characteristics (Table 43, Figure 15) Plant: semi-erect 

groundcover, width to 1.2m, maximum height 150mm. 

Leaf: mean length 94.74mm, mean width 29.96mm, shape 

oblanceolate, margins dentate, mature leaf colour green 

(RHS 137B). Flower: fan shaped, petal main colour violet 

(RHS 88C), closer to eye lighter violet (RHS 88D), eye 

colour yellow (RHS 2A), pistil colour yellow (RHS 4D), 

base of petal strongly overlapped, stripes present. (Note: all 


Origin and Breeding Seedling selection: originated from a 

batch of seedling of Scaevola aemula at applicant’s 

property in Emerald, VIC. The parental material is 

characterised by spreading growth habit and the seedling 

was selected for its semi-erect growth habit. The seedling 

was raised and trialed over a 3 year period. Selection 

criteria: growth habit, flower size and flower colour. 

Propagation: vegetatively propagated over 5 generations to 

establish uniformity and stability. Breeder: R.W. Rother, 

Emerald, VIC. 

51


Choice of Comparators ‘Rhapsody’ was chosen as it has 

the same parentage with similar growth habit. ‘Purple 

Fanfare’ was chosen because it is the most similar variety of 

common knowledge on the basis of flower colour. Initially, 

‘Summertimes Blues’ A , ‘Blue Fandango’ A , ‘Blue Wonder’ 

and ‘Petite Cascade’, were also considered as potential 

comparators. However, ‘Summertimes Blues’ A was 

excluded because it is a summer flowering plant and the 

candidate is a winter-spring flowering plant. Moreover, 

‘Summertimes Blues’ A has violet-blue (RHS 90C) flower 

colour. ‘Blue Fandango’ A was excluded because of its 

upright growth habit. ‘Blue Wonder’ was excluded because 

of its spreading growth habit. ‘Petite Cascade’ was excluded 

because of its cushion-like growth habit. The parental 

material was not included because of differences in growth 

habit as stated above. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Rhapsody’, ‘Purple 

Fanfare’. Location: Florabundance Wholesale Nursery, 

Verrierdale, QLD, Jul-Oct 1999. Conditions: plants from 

cuttings were grown in 200mm pots under full sun 

conditions in composted pinebark and sand media, with 

Osmocote® as the primary fertiliser. Standard pest and 


plants of each variety arranged in randomised rows. 

Measurements: taken from all trial plants. 


No prior applications. First sold in Australia in Jul 1999. 

Description: Tony Kebblewhite, Verrierdale, QLD. 

Table 43 Scaevola varieties 

‘Rhapsody’ ‘Sweet *‘Purple 

Serenade’ Fanfare’ 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT GROWTH HABIT 

semi-erect semi-erect prostrate-trailing 

____________________________________________________ 

ANTHOCYANIN COLOURATION IN STEM 

very weak very weak very strong 

____________________________________________________ 

STEM LENGTH (cm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 2.21 

mean 20.0 a 22.5 b 28.7 c 

std deviation 2.30 1.71 4.13 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT WIDTH (cm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 3.53 

mean 40.1 a 48.2 b 54.5 c 


____________________________________________________ 

INTERNODE LENGTH (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 4.94 

mean 22.0 a 29.47 b 40.44 c 


____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 8.58 

mean 88.12 a 94.74 ab 97.74 b 

std deviation 11.79 10.26 18.48 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF WIDTH (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 2.86 

mean 27.35 a 29.96 ab 31.28 b 


____________________________________________________ 

NUMBER OF LEAF SERRATION LSD (P≤0.01) = 0.90 

mean 11.73 c 9.06 a 10.73 b 


____________________________________________________ 


upper surface 137A 137B 137A 

lower surface 144A 146B 146B 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER DIAMETER (mm) LSD (P≤0.01) = 1.82 

mean 33.25 b 22.69 a 34.05 b 


____________________________________________________ 


main petal colour 

88C 88C 87A-C 

closer to eye 88B 88D 89C 

eye colour 3A 2A 2D 

pistil colour 3C 4D 3A 

____________________________________________________ 

OTHER FLOWER CHARACTERISTICS 

base of petal strongly strongly very weakly 

overlapped overlapped overlapped 

stripes present present present 

____________________________________________________ 

Mean values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 

P≤0.01 according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. 


Potato 

‘Redstar’ 

Application No: 1999/119 Accepted: 23 Sep 1999. 

Applicant: BV De ZPC, (now known as HZPC), 

Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. 

Agent: Harvest Moon, Forth Farm Produce Pty Ltd, Forth, 

TAS. 

Characteristics (Table 44, Figure 38) Plant: medium-tall, 

semi-erect to erect of medium growing season and 

intermediate type. Stem: medium to thick with a medium to 

strong anthocyanin extension. Leaf: medium to large, 

medium silhouette, medium to dark coloured and a medium 

to strong anthocyanin colouration on the mid-rib. Leaflet: 

medium size and with a low frequency of coalescence. 

Margins weakly waved and veins shallow. Medium to high 

frequency of secondary leaflets on the mid-rib and a high 

frequency of secondary leaflets on the terminal leaflet. 

Frequency of secondary leaflets on lateral leaflets medium. 

Inflorescence: medium sized, weak to medium anthocyanin 

colouration of peduncle, flower frequency medium, 

anthocyanin colour of bud weak-medium. Flower: corolla 

red-violet on inner side, intensity of anthocyanin colour on 

inner side weak and white tips on corolla medium to large. 

Fruits: few. Tuber: oval (round-oval*), red-skinned with 

yellow flesh, shallow-medium eyes and skin medium. 

Lightsprout: medium-large, conical, red-violet, strong 

anthocyanin colour and pubescence at base, tip medium to 

large, medium to closed and medium to strong pubescence. 

Resistant to Potato Cyst Nematode (Globodera 

rostochiensis). (*Denotes local observation.) 


‘Bildstar’ x pollen parent VDW 76-30 in a planned breeding 

program in The Netherlands in 1982. Compared to the 

maternal parent, the candidate variety is characterised by its 

higher level of resistance against Potato Cyst Nematode. 

Selection criteria: yield, quality and pest resistance. 

Propagation: micropropagation of pathogen free tissue, 

mini-tuber and tuber production. Breeder: M F W Martin 

Jensen Klomp, Metslavier, The Netherlands. 

52



Choice of Comparators The two most closely similar and 

widely known varieties of common knowledge, 

‘Symfonia’ A and ‘Desiree’ were chosen for comparison. 

The seed parent ‘Bildstar’ was excluded because the main 

quantifiable difference is the higher level resistance of the 

candidate variety against Potato Cyst Nematode 

(Globodera rostochiensis). 

Comparative Trial Registered UPOV description of the 

variety (Ref. No. ARD 1197, dated 15/05/1996) certified by 

RAAD VOOR HET KWEKERSRECHT, The Netherlands 

was compared with UPOV descriptions of registered 

varieties in Australia and data collected from previous DUS 

trials held by PBR Australia. A comparison was also made 

between ‘Redstar’, ‘Symfonia’ A and ‘Desiree’ from two 

plantings of material (minitubers) on the north west coast of 

Tasmania. Characteristics used to distinguish ‘Redstar’ 

from comparators are listed in the Comparative Table and 

differences noted locally are given in parenthesis. 



The Netherlands 1993 Granted ‘Redstar’ 

UK 1995 Surrendered ‘Redstar’ 

EU 1995 Granted ‘Redstar’ 

Canada 1996 Granted ‘Redstar’ 

First sold in The Netherlands in May 1995. First Australian 

sale Nil. 

Description: Kevin Clayton-Greene, Forth Farm Produce Pty Ltd, Forth 

TAS. 

Table 44 Solanum varieties 

‘Redstar’ *‘Symfonia’ A *‘Desiree’ 

____________________________________________________ 

LIGHTSPROUT 

shape conical ovoid narrow conical 

pubescence at base 

medium- weak medium 

strong 

size of tip medium- small small 

large 

pubescence at tip 

medium- weak very weak 

strong 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF 

extension of anthocyanin colour on midrib 

medium- strong-very weak-medium 

strong strong 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAFLETS 

frequency of leaflets on midrib 

medium-high low low 

frequency of leaflets on terminal leaflet 

high very low medium 

frequency of leaflets on lateral leaflet 

medium very low-low medium 

____________________________________________________ 

INFLORESCENCE 

anthocyanin colouration of peduncle 

weak-medium strong-very medium 

strong 

frequency of fruits 

few rare common 

____________________________________________________ 

TUBER 

shape oval - oval long-oval 

(round oval*) 

flesh colour yellow light yellow light yellow 

____________________________________________________ 

*Data in parenthesis denotes local observation. 

‘Victoria’ 


Applicant: BV De ZPC, (now known as HZPC), 

Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. 

Agent: Harvest Moon, Forth Farm Produce Pty Ltd, Forth, 

TAS. 

Characteristics (Table 45, Figure 37) Plant: medium-tall, 

erect, early to medium maturity, stem-type. Stem: thick, 

with weak anthocyanin extension. Leaf: large to very large, 

medium silhouette, medium to dark coloured with a very 

weak to weak extension of anthocyanin colouration of 

midrib. Leaflet: large sized with a medium to high 

frequency of margin coalescence. Margins weakly waved 

and veins shallow-medium. Medium to high frequency of 

secondary leaflets on the midrib, low to medium frequency 

on terminal leaflet and medium frequency of secondary 

leaflets on the lateral leaflet. Inflorescence: medium to 

large, weak to very weak anthocyanin colouration of 

peduncle, medium to high frequency of flowers, weak to 

medium anthocyanin colouration of bud. Flower: medium 

to large corolla, corolla inner side white, no anthocyanin 

colouration on outer side of corolla. Fruits: frequency 

medium. Tuber: long-oval with shallow eyes and smoothmedium 

skin, skin yellow, base of eyes yellow and flesh 

yellow, medium reaction of skin anthocyanin to light. 

Lightsprout: medium, ovoid, red-violet, medium to strong 

anthocyanin colour and pubescence at base, tip small to 

medium, tip closed and medium pubescence. Resistant to 

Potato Cyst Nematode (Globodera rostochiensis). 


‘Agria’ x pollen parent ROP J 861 in a planned breeding 

program in The Netherlands in 1982. Compared to the 

maternal parent, the candidate variety is characterised by its 

higher level of resistance against Potato Cyst Nematode. 

Selection criteria: yield, quality and pest resistance. 

Propagation: micropropagation of pathogen free tissue, 

mini-tuber and tuber production. Breeder: M F W Martin 

Jensen Klomp, Metslavier, The Netherlands. 

Choice of Comparators The two most closely similar and 

widely known varieties of common knowledge, ‘Celeste’ A 

and ‘Bintje’ were chosen for comparison. The seed parent 

‘Agria’ was excluded because the main quantifiable 

difference is the higher level resistance of the candidate 

variety against Potato Cyst Nematode (Globodera 

rostochiensis). 

Comparative Trial Registered UPOV description of the 

variety (Ref. No. ARD 1226, dated 27/05/1997) certified by 

RAAD VOOR HET KWEKERSRECHT, The Netherlands 

was compared with UPOV descriptions of registered 

varieties in Australia and data collected from previous DUS 

trials held by PBR Australia. A comparison was also made 

53


between ‘Victoria’, ‘Celeste’ A and ‘Bintje’ from two 

plantings of material (minitubers) on the north west coast of 

Tasmania. Characteristics used to distinguish ‘Victoria’ 

from comparators are listed in the Comparative Table and 

differences noted locally are given in parenthesis. 



The Netherlands 1994 Granted ‘Victoria’ 

France 1995 Granted ‘Victoria’ 

EU 1996 Granted ‘Victoria’ 

Canada 1999 Applied ‘Victoria’ 

New Zealand 1999 Applied ‘Victoria’ 

South Africa 1999 Applied ‘Victoria’ 

First sold in The Netherlands in June 1995. First Australian 

sale Nil. 

Description: Kevin Clayton-Greene, Forth Farm Produce Pty Ltd, Forth 

TAS. 

Table 45 Solanum varieties 

‘Victoria’ *‘Celeste’ A *‘Bintje’ 

____________________________________________________ 

LIGHTSPROUT 

shape ovoid conical conical 

length lateral shoot 

short short medium 

____________________________________________________ 

STEM 

extension of anthocyanin colouration 

weak very weak medium 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF 

size large-very medium small 

large 

silhouette medium medium closed 

extension anthocyanin colour on midrib 

very weak- absent-very medium 

weak weak 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAFLET 

size large medium-large medium 

____________________________________________________ 

INFLORESCENCE 

anthocyanin colour of outer side in white flower 

absent absent present 

____________________________________________________ 

TUBER 

shape long-oval long-oval oval-long 

(oval*) 

oval 

skin smooth- smooth medium 

medium** 

flesh colour yellow light yellow light yellow 

____________________________________________________ 

* Data in parenthesis denotes local observation. 

** Skin finish varies to some extent depending on soil type and length 

of time between maturity and harvest. 


Sutera, Bacopa 

‘Bridal Showers’ 


Applicant: Pixie Plants, Devon Meadows, VIC. 

Characteristics (Table 46, Figure 14) Plant: prostrate 

compact evergreen herb, stems ascending and descending, 

54 

stem density very dense. Stem: fleshy, pubescent with 

anthocyanin, leaf arrangement opposite, density of foliage 

very dense. Leaf: petiolate, broad ovate, serrate to dentate, 

pubescent, colour yellow-green RHS 146A on upper side 

and RHS 146B on lower side. Inflorescence: single flowers 

borne in axillary pairs. Flower: salver-form, small (to 14mm 

in width), sepals 5, short (to 6 mm in length), petals fused 

below, rotate above, colour white (RHS 155C) throat colour 

yellow. Stamens: 5, filament white, anther yellow. Ovary: 

superior, style green white, stigma green white. (Note: all 


Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination: between two 

plants of Sutera ‘Snowflake’. Selection criteria: from this 

cross, ‘Bridal Showers’ was chosen on the basis of flower 

characteristics and growth habit. Propagation: a number of 

mature stock plants were generated from the original 

seedling by cuttings through 5 generations to confirm 

uniformity and stability. ‘Bridal Showers’ will be 

commercially propagated by cuttings. Breeder: John 

Churchus, Devon Meadows, VIC. 

Choice of Comparators ‘Blizzard’ A and ‘Snowflake’ were 

chosen because of similarities in growth habit and flower 

colour. ‘Snowflake’ is also the parental variety. ‘Lavender 

Showers’ and ‘Pink Domino’ A were excluded because of 

lavender flower colour. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Blizzard’ A and 

‘Snowflake. Location: Devon Meadows, VIC, between Jan 

2000 and Mar 2000. Conditions: outdoors under ambient 

southern Victorian (Latitude 38ºS), plants begun as cuttings 

in Dec 1999, transplanted to 200 mm hanging baskets Jan 

1999; media soilless, fertiliser, controlled release. Trial 

design: randomised block. Measurements: ten to twenty 

specimens selected from ten plants. 


No prior applications. First sold in Australia in Sep 1999. 

Description: David Nichols, Rye, VIC. 

Table 46 Sutera varieties 

‘Bridal *‘Snowflake’ *‘Blizzard’ A 

Showers’ 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT CHARACTERISTICS 

shape flattened flat flat 

convex 

stem density very dense very dense dense 

leaf density very dense very dense dense 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT HEIGHT (cm) to top of foliage 

mean 11.7 8.7 10.0 


LSD/sig 0.9 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT WIDTH (cm) at widest 

mean 48.5 39.7 54.3 


LSD/sig 3.8 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT WIDTH: HEIGHT RATIO 

mean 4.2 4.6 5.5 


LSD/sig 0.6 ns P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________



LEAF LENGTH (mm) largest two leaves 

mean 19.2 17.9 27.2 



____________________________________________________ 

LEAF WIDTH (mm) largest two leaves 

mean 18.6 19.6 25.0 



____________________________________________________ 

LEAF LENGTH: WIDTH RATIO largest two leaves 

mean 1.03 0.91 1.09 


LSD/sig 0.05 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

PETIOLE LENGTH (mm) largest two leaves 

mean 5.7 8.2 11.3 


LSD/sig 1.2 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

NUMBER OF LEAF DENTATIONS on one side below 

terminal lobe on two largest leaves 

mean 6.3 6.4 10.0 



____________________________________________________ 

INTERNODE LENGTH (mm) internode above first open flower 

on longest stem 

mean 15.1 12.1 24.2 


LSD/sig 2.9 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

Triticum turgidum ssp. turgidum L.conv. durum (Desf.) 

Durum Wheat 

‘Tamaroi’ 



of the State of New South Wales, Orange, NSW and 


ACT. 

Characteristics (Table 47, Figure 41) Plant: tetraploid (2n 

= 28), habit erect, stature semi dwarf, early maturing (148 

days). Coleoptile: anthocyanin colouration strong. Lower 

leaf: yellow-green (RHS 147A); auricles smooth, weak 

anthocyanin colouration. Flag leaf: sheath glaucosity 

strong, lower side of blade glaucosity weak; auricle margin 

pubescence very weak or absent. Fully expanded flag leaves 

average length 30cm (range 25-35cm), average width 

22mm (range 17-26mm). Ear: colour buff (RHS 161C to 

D), density medium, parallel, glaucosity strong, length 

(primary) 84cm (range 70-98cm). Rachis: last internode 

pubescence absent. Awns: long 165mm (range 144- 

187mm), black at maturity, persistent. Stamen: anthers lack 

anthocyanin. Lower glume: length 14.8mm (range 12- 

17mm), width 4mm (range 3.5-5mm); elevated shoulder 

with second point; beak long and slightly curved; internal 

hairs weak; internal imprint absent or very small. Grain: 

length 8mm (range 7.4-8.9mm), width 3.6mm (range 3.3- 

4.0mm); cheek angular; brush length short. Embryo: size 

medium, shape oval. Grain storage proteins: gliadin and 

glutenin composition consistent over two generations and 

four contrasting sites in South Australia. 


‘Altar 84’ x pollen parent ‘Tam1B-17/Kamilaroi/3/Wells/- 

56111//Guillemot’ in a planned breeding program in 1988 

using a modified pedigree breeding method. The seed 

parent is characterised by a significantly lower carotenoid 

(yellow pigment level) content in the grain endosperm when 

measured on comparative trial materials. Selection criteria: 

yield, agronomic characters, disease resistance, quality 

characteristics. Propagation: seed. Breeders: Members of 

Northern Durum Wheat Improvement Program. 

Choice of Comparators: ‘Kamilaroi’, ‘Yallaroi’ and 

‘Wollaroi’ A were chosen as they share common 

characteristics with ‘Tamaroi’, common ancestry and are 

varieties of common knowledge. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘Kamilaroi’, ‘Yallaroi’, 

‘Wollaroi’ A . Location: Tamworth Centre for Crop 

Improvement, Tamworth, NSW, Jun-Oct 1999. Conditions: 

rainfed, rainfall sufficient to prevent moisture stress, aerial 

and root diseases absent, adequate fertiliser. Trial design: 

completely random design with 2 replications. 

Measurements: 10 random samples from 2000 plants per 

plot per replicate. 

Prior Applications and Sale 

No prior applications. First sold in Australia in 1998. 

Description: Ray Hare, NSW Agriculture, Tamworth, NSW. 

Table 47 Triticum varieties 

‘Tamaroi’ *‘Kamilaroi’ *‘Yallaroi’ *‘Wollaroi’ A 

____________________________________________________ 

COLEOPTILE: ANTHOCYANIN COLOURATION 

very strong medium strong 

strong 

____________________________________________________ 

FLAG LEAF AURICLES: ANTHOCYANIN COLOURATION 

absent or absent or weak strong 

very weak very weak 

____________________________________________________ 

EAR SHAPE 

parallel tapering tapering tapering 

____________________________________________________ 

EAR DENSITY 

medium lax medium lax 

____________________________________________________ 

AWN COLOUR 

black buff buff buff 

____________________________________________________ 

AWN LENGTH (mm) 

mean 166.2 167.0 158.5 145.2 

std deviation 14.7 10.9 14.7 11.8 

LSD/sig 4.6 ns P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LOWER GLUME SHOULDER WIDTH 

narrow absent or absent or absent or 

very narrow very narrow very narrow 

____________________________________________________ 

LOWER GLUME SHOULDER SHAPE 

elevated elevated sloping rounded 

with with 

2nd point 2nd point 

present present 

____________________________________________________ 

55


Table 47 continued 

LOWER GLUME BEAK LENGTH 

short medium medium short 

_______________________________________________ 

LOWER GLUME BEAK SHAPE 

slightly slightly straight straight 

curved curved 

_______________________________________________ 


Narbon Bean 

‘Tanami’ 


Applicant: Agriculture Victoria Services Pty Ltd, 

Attwood, VIC and 


ACT. 

Characteristics (Table 48, Figure 46) Plant: narbon bean 

suitable for milling or stock feed, height medium, time of 

flowering late, maturity late, anthocyanin present. Foliage: 

colour green. Leaf: leaflets present, as pairs in sets of 2 or 

3. Stipule: present, short, narrow. Tendrils: present, short. 

Flower: colouration of wing reddish purple. Pod: shape 

straight, colour dark, anthocyanin present, shape of distal 

part pointed. Seed: shape irregular, size medium, cotyledon 

colour yellow, dimpled, testa colour dark brown. 

Origin and Breeding Controlled pollination: ‘Tanami’ was 

selected from a single cross, ATC 60105*1/ATC 60667 

made in 1986. Both parents were public domain germplasm 

obtained from the Australian Temperate Field Crop 

Collection, Horsham, VIC. A pedigree breeding scheme 

was followed in selecting the line. The line was reselected 

two times at F 2 and F 5 generations. The line was yield tested 

in trials in VIC, NSW, SA and WA between 1992 and 1998. 

The seed level of the sulphur compound gamma–glutamyl- 

S-ethyl-cysteine (GEC), an anti nutritional compound, is 

less in ‘Tanami’ than either parent. The line was promoted 

to variety testing in Victoria and nationwide evaluation in 

the 1996 interstate Narbon bean variety testing program. In 

1997 the line was bulked via 100 single plant populations 

derived from a maintenance program to ensure absence of 

viruses and other legume diseases and also to ensure purity 

of the line. In 1998 the line was bulked over winter at 

Horsham and Walpeup. Selection criteria: grain yield, 

lodging resistance, grain quality, shattering resistance, even 

ripening. Propagation: by seed. Breeder: Mrs Luise Mock, 

Mr Geoff Castleman, Agriculture Victoria, Walpeup, 

Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, 

VIC. 

Choice of Comparators ‘ATC 60667’ and ‘ATC 60105*1’, 

were used as the comparators in the trial. ‘Tanami’ is the 

first narbon bean variety to be released in Australia and 

therefore no varieties of common knowledge exist. The 

comparators are parents used in developing the first narbon 

bean variety ‘Tanami’. 

Comparative Trial Comparators: ‘ATC 60667’ and ‘ATC 

60105*1’. Location: Walpeup, VIC, Jun-Dec 1998. 

Conditions: plants were raised in red sandy loam soils in 

open beds. Trial design: randomised complete block design. 

There were 2 replicate blocks that consisted of variety plots. 

Each plot was sown as a plot 6 rows x 15m in length. 

Sowing rate was 80 plants per square metre. Measurements: 

10 specimens per replication selected randomly from each 

plot. 




Table 48 Vicia narbonensis 

‘Tanami’ *‘ATC 60667’‘ATC 60105*1’ 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAFLET: WIDTH OF FIRST PAIRED LEAFLET ON FIRST 

FERTILE NODE (mm) 

mean 30.10 22.75 21.25 


LSD/sig 1.42 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT HEIGHT AT MATURITY (cm) 

mean 29.95 20.85 25.45 


LSD/sig 1.40 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER: NUMBER OF NODES TO FIRST FLOWER 

mean 8.75 10.70 8.30 


LSD/sig 1.00 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 

POD: LENGTH OF POD FROM SECOND FERTILE NODE (mm) 

mean 53.50 36.25 46.05 


LSD/sig 2.00 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

POD: NUMBER OF OVULES FOR POD FROM SECOND 

FERTILE NODE 

mean 5.60 4.15 5.35 


LSD/sig 0.50 P≤0.01 ns 

____________________________________________________ 

SEED: WEIGHT (100 HARVESTED DRY SEEDS) (g) 

mean 20.00 15.25 23.00 


LSD/sig 1.67 P≤0.01 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

FLOWER: INTENSITY OF WING COLOURATION 

(Purple/Pink blush) 

medium medium dark 

____________________________________________________ 

PLANT FOLIAGE COLOUR: (50% OF PLANTS HAVE ONE 

FLOWER OPEN) 

yellow green dark green yellow green 

RHS 147B RHS137B RHS147B 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAFLET: DEGREE OF DENTATION 

medium weak medium 

____________________________________________________ 

POD: INTENSITY OF BROWN COLOUR AT MATURITY 

medium medium weak 

____________________________________________________ 

TIME OF FLOWERING: (50% OF PLANTS HAVE ONE 

FLOWER OPEN) 

medium late medium 

____________________________________________________ 

SEED: TIME OF MATURITY 

medium very late late 

____________________________________________________ 

SEED: COLOUR OF TESTA 

dark brown black greenish brown 

____________________________________________________ 

56




Golden Penda 

‘Trailblazer’ 

Application No. 2000/054 Accepted 22 Mar 2000 

Applicant: R & G Hilder 

Characteristics (Table 49, Figure 16) Plant: upright bushy 

shrub to small tree. Young Flowering Stem: green, hairless, 

texture waxy. Leaf: ovate lanceolate, alternate; length mean 

178.60mm, width 45.36mm, margin entire, both surfaces 

glabrous, centre of leaf irregularly variegated gold (RHS 

153B – 151A) mean length of variegation 155.8mm, width 

29.76mm. Outer green section (RHS 137A – 139A). 

Inflorescence and flowers normal for the species in size and 

colour. 

Origin and Breeding ‘Trailblazer’ arose as a mutant 

seedling in a batch of normal from of Xanthostemon 

chrysanthus seedlings in 1992 at the applicants’ nursery at 

Upper Stone via Ingham, QLD. It has been propagated 

through 10 generations and remained stable. Selection 

criteria: the broad gold variegation in the centre of the 

leaves. Breeder: R & G Hilder, Upper Stone, QLD. 

Choice of Comparator normal form of Xanthostemon 

chrysanthus was chosen as it represents the parental 

material. ‘Tropical Splendor’ was excluded because of its 

smaller leaves. The leaves are smaller (mean length 

86.0mm x 19.53mm) compared with ‘Trailblazer’ (mean 

length 178.6mm x 45.36mm) and the variegation the 

reverse, being green in the centre with variegated edges. 

‘Expo Gold’ was not chosen as a comparator because it has 

normal green leaves with no variegation. 

Comparative Trial Comparator: normal from of 

Xanthostemon chrysanthus Location: Hilder’s Nursery, 

Upper Stone, QLD, Nov. 1999 – Apr, 2000. Conditions: 

trial conducted in the open on weedmat, plants propagated 

from cuttings; rooted cuttings potted into 170mm pots, 

nutrition supplied with slow release fertiliser, pest and 

disease treatments applied as required. Trial design: 30 

plants of each variety arranged in 3 replicated randomised 

blocks. Measurements: from all plants. 

Prior Application and Sales Nil. 


Table 49 Xanthostemon varieties 

‘Trailblazer’ *Xanthostemon 

chrysanthus 

normal form 

________________________________________________ 


mean 677.00 586.83 


LSD/sig. 61.45 P≤0.01 

________________________________________________ 

LEAF: LENGTH (mm) 

mean 178.60 128.97 


LSD/sig. 10.20 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF: WIDTH (mm) 

mean 45.37 38.20 


LSD/sig. 2.88 P≤0.01 

____________________________________________________ 

LEAF: VARIEGATION 

present 

absent 

____________________________________________________ 


Zoysiagrass, Japanese Lawn grass, Korean grass 

‘El Toro’ 


Applicant: The Regents of the University of California, 

Oakland, California, USA. 

Agent: Agricultural Licensing Australia Pty Ltd, North 

Paramatta, NSW 

Characteristics (Figure 48) Plant: fine to medium textured 

turf grass. Leaf: distinctly rolled in bud-shoot, blade: 3-5 

mm wide, flat, obtuse at base and acute at tip, 13-23cm 

long, with a few long hairs near base. Sheath: round to 

slightly flattened, split with hyaline margins, smooth with 

tuft of hairs above. Ligule: a fringe of hairs 0.2mm long. 

Auricles: absent. Collar: hairy at margins. Inflorescence: 

numerous and short, terminal spike-like raceme 2.5cm long, 

spikelets 3mm long, pale purplish-brown. Stolons and 

rhizomes present. 

Origin and Breeding Open pollination: ‘El Toro’ was 

derived from open pollination among selected clones of 

Zoysia japonica at University of California, Riverside. 

Initially designated as UCR#1 it was propagated asexually 

by rhizomes and tillers. In 1978 placed in comparative trial 

plots at the University of California South Coast Field 

Station as YZ1 with 11 other Zoysia selections and crosses. 

Selection criteria: YZ1 was selected from this trial as 

superior for rapid establishment, shorter dormant period 

due to earlier spring greenup and later autumn brownout, 

slower leaf elongation (mowing only needed every 7 to 14 

days) and higher drought tolerance. YZ1 was later 

designated as ‘El Toro’. Propagation: commercially, ‘El 

Toro’ is vegetatively propagated, due to problems with seed 

viability. Breeder: Dr. Victor B Younger. 

Choice of Comparators Currently there is no other variety 

of Zoysia japonica available in Australia. However, in the 

USA a number of varieties are available. The performance 

of ‘El Toro’ and 18 other Zoysia varieties has been 

described in Progress Report 1997 of the National Turfgrass 

Evaluation Program (NTEP No. 98-4), USDA, Beltsville, 

Maryland 20705, USA. The most similar varieties of 

common knowledge are ‘Meyer’ and ‘Emerald’. 

Comparative Trial The description provided herein is 

based on overseas data sourced from the United States Plant 

Patent 5,845 dated 30 Dec 1986. That data was generated in 

a randomised block trial with four replications containing 

the candidate and eleven comparators. The data has been 

verified in Australia by the inspection of ‘El Toro’ plants at 

Kilmore, VIC in May 2000. ‘El Toro’ differs from 

‘Emerald’ in having a darker green colour (genetic colour 

rating 6.7 vs 6.1 on a 1-9 scale; LSD = 0.3). ‘El Toro’ differs 

from ‘Meyer’ in having coarser leaf texture (leaf texture 

57


rating 4.4 vs 5.9 on a 1-9 scale; LSD =0.3). The 

comparative data was sourced from Progress Report 1997 

of the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP No. 

98-4). 



USA 1984 Granted ‘El Toro’ 

First sold in the USA in 15 May 1986. 

Description: Ian Aberdeen, Kilmore,VIC. 

GRANTS 


Aglaonema 

‘Brilliant Beauty’ A 

Application No: 1998/104 Grantee: Dr B Frank Brown. 

Certificate No: 1486 Expiry Date: 6 June, 2020. 


‘Grey Dawn’ A 




‘Lisa Joy’ A 




‘Silver Rain’ A 





Aglaonema 

‘Rhapsody in Green’ A 





Alstroemeria 

‘Stasabi’ A syn Sabina A 

Application No: 1997/246 Grantee: Van Staaveren bv. 


Agent: F & I Baguley Flower & Plant Growers, 

Clayton South, VIC. 


Kangaroo Paw 

‘Bush Garnet’ A 

Application No: 1997/061 Grantee: Yates Botanicals Pty 

Limited, Somersby, NSW. 



Paper Daisy 

‘Broome Pearl’ A 

Application No: 1999/020 Grantee: Redlands Nursery Pty 

Ltd, Redland Bay, QLD. 


58

GRANTS 



Buffalo Grass 

‘Oasis’ A 

Application No: 1992/136 Grantee: The Board of Regents 

of the University of Nebraska. 

Certificate No: 1514 Expiry Date: 22 September, 2012. 

Agent: Callinan Lawrie, Kew, VIC. 


Rhodes Grass 

‘Nemkat’ A 

Application No: 1995/115 Grantee: The State of 

Queensland through its Department of Primary 

Industries, Brisbane, QLD. 

Certificate No: 1521 Expiry Date: 11 April, 2020. 


Chickpea 

‘Bumper’ A 

Application No: 1997/097 Grantee: Department of 

Agriculture for and on behalf of the State of New South 

Wales and Grains Research and Development 

Corporation. 


Agent: Australian Agricultural Commodities, Wee Waa, 

NSW. 

‘Gully’ A 

Application No: 1997/096 Grantee: Department of 

Agriculture for and on behalf of the State of New South 

Wales and Grains Research and Development 

Corporation. 


Agent: Australian Agricultural Commodities, Wee Waa, 

NSW. 


Sweet Orange 

‘Powell Summer Navel’ A 

Application No: 1989/006 Grantee: Powell Navel Pty Ltd, 

Mildura, VIC. 

Certificate No: 1517 Expiry Date: 20 January, 2009. 


Arizona Cypress 

‘Highlight’ A 

Application No: 1999/189 Grantee: Peter and Ruth 

Donnelly, Somersby, NSW. 

Certificate No: 1504 Expiry Date: 13 June, 2025. 

‘Limeglow’ A 

Application No: 1999/190 Grantee: Peter and Ruth 

Donnelly, Somersby, NSW. 



Couchgrass 

‘Riley’s Evergreen’ A 

Application No: 1998/053 Grantee: RJ & ML Riley Pty 

Ltd, Guildford, NSW. 



Poinsettia 

‘Duecabrired’ A syn Red Fox Tabaluga Red A 

Application No: 1998/253 Grantee: Marga Dummen. 


Agent: F & I Baguley Flower & Plant Growers, Clayton 

South, VIC. 

‘Duecohopi’ A syn Red Fox Coco Hot Pink A 




South, VIC. 

‘Duedeluxe’ A syn Red Fox De Luxe A 




South, VIC. 

‘Dueimco’ A syn Red Fox Coco 2000 A 




South, VIC. 

‘Duemal’ A syn Red Fox Malibu Red A 




South, VIC. 

‘Duenidared’ A syn Red Fox Victory Red A 




South, VIC. 

‘Fiscor’ A syn Cortez Red A 

Application No: 1998/189 Grantee: FLORA-NOVA 

Pflanzen GmbH. 


Agent: Gladland Flowers, Victoria Point, QLD. 

‘Fiscor Creme’ A syn Cortez White A 

Application No: 1998/190 Grantee: FLORA-NOVA 

Pflanzen GmbH. 


Agent: Gladland Flowers, Victoria Point, QLD. 

59



Gaura 

‘Siskiyou Pink’ A 

Application No: 1997/132 Grantee: Baldassare Mineo. 


Agent: Plant Growers Australia Pty Ltd, Wonga Park, 

VIC. 


Cotton 

‘Sicala 40’ A 

Application No: 1998/143 Grantee: CSIRO Plant 

Industry, Narrabri, NSW. 


Hebe hybrid 

Hebe 

‘Gold Beauty’ A 

Application No: 1997/277 Grantee: BE Jackson, Dromana, 

VIC. 



Chinese Hibiscus 

‘West Coast Jewel’ A 

Application No: 1995/298 Grantee: David Albert Ivor 

Passmore. 



‘West Coast Red’ A 

Application No: 1995/299 Grantee: David Albert Ivor 

Passmore. 



Kalanchoe spp 

Kalanchoe 

‘Elves Bells’ A 

Application No: 1997/290 Grantee: John Churchus, 

Devon Meadows, VIC. 


Lavandula stoechas ssp. luisieri 

Lavender 

‘Tickled Pink’ A 

Application No: 1998/153 Grantee: Virginia McNaughton 

and Dennis Matthews. 


Agent: Australian Perennial Growers Pty Ltd, Glenorie, 

NSW. 


Osmanthus 

‘Heaven Sent’ A 

Application No: 1997/186 Grantee: RJ Cherry, Kulnura, 

NSW. 


60 

‘Pearly Gates’ A 

Application No: 1997/187 Grantee: RJ Cherry, Kulnura, 

NSW. 


Prunus hybrid 

Prunus Rootstock 

‘Atlas’ A 

Application No: 1994/187 Grantee: Zaiger’s Inc. Genetics. 

Certificate No: 1511 Expiry Date: 5 September, 2014. 

Agent: Fleming’s Nurseries and Associates Pty Ltd, 

Monbulk, VIC. 

‘Zaipime’ A 

Application No: 1993/157 Grantee: Zaiger’s Inc. Genetics. 

Certificate No: 1512 Expiry Date: 26 July, 2013. 

Agent: Fleming’s Nurseries and Associates Pty Ltd, 

Monbulk, VIC. 


Rosemary 

‘Renzels’ A syn Irene A 

Application No: 1997/127 Grantee: Philip A Johnson. 


Agent: Plants Management Australia Pty Ltd, Warragul, 

VIC. 


Zygocactus 

‘Aspen’ A 

Application No: 1994/147 Grantee: B.L. Cobia, Inc.. 



‘Savannah’ A 




‘St. Charles’ A 





Potato 

‘Argos’ A 

Application No: 1996/147 Grantee: Caithness Potato 

Breeders Ltd. 


Agent: Elders Limited, Adelaide, SA. 

‘Redgem’ A 

Application No: 1996/146 Grantee: Caithness Potato 

Breeders Ltd. 


Agent: Elders Limited, Adelaide, SA.

GRANTS 



Spathiphyllum 

‘Ceres’ A syn Ceres Star A 

Application No: 1995/302 Grantee: Gebr Braam. 


Agent: Jacksons Nursery, The Gap, Brisbane, QLD. 


Syzygium 

‘Petite Blush’ A 

Application No: 1996/253 Grantee: Andrew Walter 

Bryant and Steve Sutton, Coffs Harbour, NSW. 



Lilly Pilly 

‘Little Lil’ A 

Application No: 1998/135 Grantee: Terrance Denis and 

Carmel Mary Hennessey, Upper Caboolture, QLD. 



Waratah 

‘Dreaming’ A 

Application No: 1995/111 Grantee: Brian Fitzpatrick, 

Kenthurst, NSW. 



Kangaroo Grass 

‘Tangara’ A 

Application No: 1996/099 Grantee: CSIRO Plant 

Industry, Canberra, ACT. 



Persian Clover 

‘Laser’ A 

Application No: 1995/018 Grantee: Seedco Australia Cooperative 

Limited, Hilton, SA. 


‘Leeton’ A 





Wheat 

‘H45’ A 

Application No: 1998/066 Grantee: SunPrime Seeds Pty 

Ltd, Dubbo, NSW. 

Certificate No: 1513 Expiry Date: 14 June, 2020. 


Verbena 

‘Sunmariba’ A syn Violet Surprise A 

Application No: 1998/226 Grantee: Suntory Limited. 


Agent: Yates Botanicals Pty Limited, Somersby, NSW. 

‘Sunmaririho’ A syn White Sensation A 




‘Sunmariripi’ A syn Coral Pink A 




Vicia sativa 

Common Vetch 

‘Vedura’ A 




‘Velero’ A 




‘Vestar’ A 




Vicia villosa 

Woolly Pod Vetch 

‘Capello’ A 




‘Haymaker Plus’ A 




61


DENOMINATION CHANGED 


Paper Daisy 

‘Coolgardie Gold’ 

From: Kalgoorlie Gold 

Application No: 1999/021 


Weeping Fig 

‘Vivian’ syn Indigo 

From: Indigo 



Impatiens 

‘Celdered’ syn Celebration Deep Red 

From: BFP-523 Deep Red 



Perennial Ryegrass 

‘Arena 1’ 

From: Arena One 



Apple 

‘Rosy Glow’ syn Pink Aurora 

From: Pink Aurora 


Vicia faba 

Field Bean 

‘Ascot VF’ 

From: Ascot 


SYNONYM CHANGED 


Tall Fescue 

‘Resolute’ 

synonym El Pampa deleted 

Application No: 1998/131 

AGENTS CHANGED 

From: Burbank Biotechnology Pty Ltd 

To: Lynch Flowers 

for the following varieties: 


Baby’s Breath 

‘Dangypmini’ 


‘Dangysha’ syn Yukinko 


From: Forbio Plants Pty Ltd 

To: Yates Botanicals Pty Ltd 


Aster hybrid 

Easter Daisy 

‘Dark Milka’ 


‘Karmijin Milka’ 


‘Milka’ 


‘Peter’s White’ 



Petunia 

‘Revolution Bluevein’ A syn Blue Highlights A 

Application No: 1994/155 Certificate No: 1092 

‘Revolution Brilliantpink’ A 


‘Revolution Pastel Pink No. 2’ A 


‘Revolution Pinkmini’ A syn Blushing Pink A 


‘Revolution Pinkvein’ A syn Pink Highlights A 


‘Revolution Violet No. 2’ A 


‘Revolution White’ A 


‘Sanberubu’ A syn Blue Chimes A 


‘Sanberupi’ A syn Pink Chimes A 


‘Sunbelchipi’ A syn Cherry Pink A 


‘Sunbelkubu’ A syn Trailing Blue A 


62


‘Sunbelkuho’ A syn Trailing White A 


‘Sunbelkupi’ A syn Trailing Pink A 



Torenia 

‘Sunrenilabu’ A syn Blue Magic A 



Verbena 

‘Sanmaripi’ A syn Pink Profusion A 


‘Sanmarisu’ A syn Scarlet Fire A 


‘Sunmarefu TP-L’ A syn Lilac Reflections A 


‘Sunmarefu TP-P’ A syn Pink Passion A 


From: South Australian Seedgrowers Cooperative 

To: Seedco Australia Co-operative Limited 

for the following variety: 


Lucerne 

‘Venus’ 


From: South Australian Seedgrowers Co-operative Limited 



Trifolium subterraneum ssp brachycalycinum 

Subterranean Clover 

‘Antas’ 


Trifolium subterraneum ssp subterraneum 


‘Campeda’ 


‘Sunmarefu TP-V’ A syn Purple Passion A 


‘Sunmarefu TP-W’ A syn White Lightning A 


‘Sunmariba’ A syn Violet Surprise A 


‘Sunmaririho’ A syn White Sensation A 


‘Sunmariripi’ A syn Coral Pink A 


CHANGE IN AGENT’S NAME 

From: SA Seedgrowers Cooperative Ltd 




Lucerne 

‘Aquarius’ A 


‘Genesis’ A 




‘Nuba’ A 


CHANGE OF ASSIGNMENT 

From: Claude Ray Garnett 

To: Claude Ray Garnett and Elizabeth Alice Garnett 



Camellia 

‘Sweet Jane’ A 


From: CSIRO Division of Tropical Agriculture 

To: Selected Seeds Pty Ltd 


Panicum laxum 

Panic Grass 

‘Shadegro’ A 

Application No: 1994/132 Certificate No: 447 

From: Forbio Plants Pty Ltd 

To: Yates Botanicals Pty Ltd 



Kangaroo Paw 

‘Bush Ember’ A 


‘Bush Garnet’ A 


‘Bush Heritage’ A 


63


‘Bush Ochre’ A 


‘Bush Pearl’ 


‘Bush Splendour’ A 


‘Bush Twilight’ A 



Impatiens 

‘Ambience’ A 


‘Ambrosia’ A 


‘Illusion’ A 

Application No: 1992/137 Certificate No: 353 

‘Innocence’ A 


‘Shadow’ A 


‘Tempest’ A 


Rosa hybrid 

Rose 

‘Chameleon’ A 


From: Perunna Pty Ltd & Javmain Pty Ltd 

To: Scott Bailey and Javmain Pty Ltd 



Alder 

‘Royal Cascade’ A syn Weeping Willy A 


From: Stephen Membrey 

To: Stephen Membrey and Gayle Membrey 



Smooth Barked Apple 

‘Little Gumball’ 



Coleonema 

‘Mellow Yellow’ 



False Sarsparilla 

‘White Out’ 


Hebe hybrid 

Hebe 

‘Heebie Jeebies’ 


From: Giuseppe Ralli & Iolanda Ralli 

To: Iolanda Ralli 



Grape 

‘Ralli Seedless’ A 


From: Manchester Nominees Pty Ltd 

To: David Albert Ivor Passmore 




‘West Coast Jewel’ A 


‘West Coast Red’ A 


CHANGE IN OWNER’S NAME 

From: Ball FloraPlant 

To: Ball FloraPlant – A Division of Ball Horticultural 

Company 



Angelonia 

‘Balangdeum’ 


‘Balanglav’ 


‘Balangpink’ 


‘Balangpurp’ 


‘Balangwhit’ 


64



Impatiens 

‘Balcelavgo’ syn Celebration Lavender Glow 


‘Balcelilae’ syn Celebration Light Lavender 

III 


‘Balcelisow’ syn Celebration Salmon II 


‘Balcelrost’ syn Celebration Rose Star 



Impatiens 

‘BFP-368 Rose’ A syn Rose Celebration A 


‘BSR-152 Dark Pink’ A syn Celebration Deep 

Pink A 


‘BSR-186 Bonfire Orange’ A syn Celebration 

Orange Bonfire A 


‘Celdered’ syn Celebration Deep Red 


‘Celebration Candy Pink’ A 


‘Celebration Pure White’ A 

Application No: 1994/113 Certificate No: 577 

‘Purple Star’ A syn Celebration Purple Star A 



Impatiens 

‘Balfiecobl’ syn Fiesta Coral Bells 


‘Balfieorce’ syn Fiesta Orange Spice 


‘Fiesta White’ A 


‘Lavender Orchid’ A syn Fiesta Lavender 

Orchid Double A 


‘Pink Ruffle’ A syn Fiesta Pink Ruffle A 


Sparkler Rose’ A syn Fiesta Sparkler Rose 

Double A 


Pelargonium x hortorum 

Pelargonium 

‘BFP-838 Dark Red’ syn Designer Dark Red 


‘Starburst Red’ 


‘Showcase Salmon’ 


‘Pink Heart’ syn Showcase Pink Heart 


‘BFP-788 Bright Scarlet’ syn Designer Bright 

Scarlet 


‘BFP-721 Bright Lilac’ syn Designer Bright Lilac 

Application No: 1998/013 

Pelargonium hortorum x Pelargonium peltatum 

Pelargonium 

‘Balgalpipn’ syn Galleria Pink Punch 


‘Balgalsabe’ syn Galleria Scarlet Beauty 



Pelargonium 

‘Balcolav’ syn Colorcade Lavender Glow 


‘Balcolilac’ syn Colorcade Lilac 


‘Balcolink’ syn Colorcade Pink 


‘Balcolburg’ syn Colorcade Burgundy 


From: New York College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 

Cornell 

To: Cornell University 



Potato 

‘Pike’ 


From: South Australian Seedgrowers Co-operative Limited 




Lucerne 

‘Rapide’ 


65



Crimson Clover 

‘Blaza’ 



Berseem Clover 

‘Elite II’ A 




‘Laser’ A 


‘Leeton’ A 




‘Lightning’ A 



White Clover 

‘Waverley’ A 


Vicia villosa 

Wooly Pod Vetch 

‘Capello’ A 


‘Haymaker Plus’ A 


Vicia sativa 

Common Vetch 

‘Vedura’ A 


‘Velero’ A 


‘Vestar’ A 


APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN 

The following varieties are no longer under provisional 

protection: 


Alstroemeria 

Stamial’ syn Pink Minetti 


66 


Clematis 

‘Landsdowne Gem’ 



Clematis 

‘Broughton Star’ 


Lupinus albus 

White Lupin 

‘Lucyanne’ 



Rhododendron 

‘Australian Celebration’ 


‘Coffee Caramel’ 


Rosa hybrid 

Rose 

‘Helhein’ syn Super Sparkle 


‘Helkleger’ syn Super Elfin 


‘Helklewei’ syn Super Bianca 


‘Nano Nagle’ 



Potato 

‘Smith’s Starlight’ 


GRANTS SURRENDERED 

The following varieties are no longer under protection: 


Alstroemeria 

‘Alaska’ 

Application No: 1994/039 Certificate Number: 459 

‘Atlanta’ 


‘Flamengo’ 


‘Little Moon’ 

Application No: 1997/178 Certificate Number: 1371


‘Little Star’ 


‘Little Sun’ 


‘Zanta’ syn Violetta 



Wallaby Grass 

‘Hume’ 


Dianthus barbatus x Dianthus superbus 

Carnation 

‘Statropur’ syn Gipsy 



Cotton 

‘CS 7S’ 


‘DP 5415’ syn Blanca 


‘DP 5690’ syn Linda 


‘Sicala 34’ 


‘Sicot 50i’ 


‘Siokra L-23i’ 


‘Siokra V-15i’ 



Barley 

‘Venture’ 



Brush Box 

‘Billy Bunter’ 



Peach 

Rosa hybrid 

Rose 

‘Meicarsel’ syn Mascara Minijet 


‘Pink Kardinal’ 


CORRIGENDA 

Actinidia chinensis 

Kiwifruit 

‘HORT16A’ 


Journal Reference: PVJ 13.1 page 19 

Corrigenda: First sale date should read as 5th August 1997. 

Not May 1997. 


Paper Daisy 

‘Wanetta Sunshine’ 



Corrigenda: Bracteantha bracteata should read as 

Bracteantha hybrid. 

Rosa hybrid 

Rose 

‘Ruiconti’ syn Yellow Unique 



Corrigenda: The comparator for ‘Ruiconti’ should be 

‘Cocktail 80’ (‘Meitakilor’) and not ‘Cocktail’. 

Triticum turgidum subsp durum 

Durum Wheat 

‘Arrivato’ 


‘line 4210.23.6’ 


Journal Reference: PVJ 13.1 page 80 and 81 

Corrigeanda: In Choice of Comparators paragraph, the 

correct name for the comparators should read as ‘Wollaroi’ 

and ‘Kamilaroi’ instead of ‘Wallaroi’ and ‘Kamillaroi’. 

‘Kialla’ 



Black Locust 

‘Lace Lady’ 


67


APPENDIX 1 

FEES 

Two fee structures exist as a result of the transition from 

Plant Variety Rights to Plant Breeders Rights. 

For new applications (those lodged on or after 11 November 

1994) the PBR fees apply. For older applications lodged 

before 11 November 1994 and not finally disposed of 

(Granted, Withdrawn, Refused etc.) the PVR fees in force at 

the time apply. 

The Treasurer has determined that all statutory fees under 

PBR regulations will be exempted from GST. 

Payment of Fees 

Inactive applications 

An application will be deemed inactive if, after 24 months 

of provisional protection (or 12 months in the case of nonpayment 

of the examination fee) the PBR Office has not 

received a completed application or has not been advised to 

proceed with the examination or an extension of provisional 

protection has not been requested or not granted or a 

certificate fee has not been paid. Inactive applications will 

be examined and, should they not fully comply with Section 

44 of the PBR Act 1994, they will be refused. As a result 

provisional protection will lapse, priority claims on that 

variety will be lost and should the variety have been sold, it 

will be ineligible for plant breeders rights on reapplication. 

Continued use of labels or any other means to falsely imply 

that a variety is protected after the application has been 

refused is an offence under Section 75 of the Act. 

All cheques for fees should be made payable and sent to: 

Collector of Public Monies 

C/-Plant Breeders Rights Office 

GPO Box 858 

Canberra, ACT 2601 

The application fee ($300) must accompany the 

application at the time of lodgement. 

Consequences of not paying fees when due 

Application fee 

Should an application not be accompanied by the prescribed 

application fee the application will be deemed to be ‘nonvalid’ 

and neither assigned an application number nor 

examined for acceptance pending the payment of the fee. 

Examination fee 

Non-payment of the examination fee of an application will 

automatically result, at the end of 12 months from the date 

of acceptance, in a refusal of the application. The 

consequences of refusal are the same as for applications 

deemed to be inactive (see ‘inactive applications’ below). 

Field examinations and final examinations falling within the 

first 12 months will not be undertaken without prior 

payment of the examination fee. 

Consideration of a request for an extension of the period of 

provisional protection from the initial 12 month period may 

require the prior payment of the examination fee. 

Certificate fee 

Following the successful completion of the examination, 

including the public notice period, the applicant will be 

required and invoiced to pay the certification fee. Payment 

of the certification fee is a prerequisite to granting PBR and 

issuing the official certificate by the PBR office. Failure to 

pay the fee may result in a refusal to grant PBR. 

Annual fee 

Should an annual renewal fee not be paid within 30 days 

after the due date, the grant of PBR will be revoked under 

Section 50 of the PBR Act. To assist grantees, the PBR 

office will invoice grantees or their Australian agents for 

renewal fees. 

68


FEES 

Basic Fees 

Schedule 

A B C D 

$ 

Application 300 300 400 300 

Examination – per application 1400 1200 1400 800 

Certificate 300 300 250 300 

Total Basic Fees 2000 1800 2050 1400 

Annual Renewal – all applications 300 

Schedule 

A Single applications and applications based on an official overseas test reports. 

B Applicable when two or more Part 2 Applications are lodged simultaneously and the varieties are of the same genus 

and the examinations can be completed at one location at the same time. 

C Applications lodged under PVR (prior to 10th Nov 1994) 

D Applicable to 5 or more applications examined at an Accredited Centralised Testing Centre 

Other Fees 

Variation to application(s) – per hour or part thereof 75 

Change of Assignment – per application 100 

Copy of an application (Part1 and/or Part2) , an objection 

or a detailed description 50 

Copy of an entry in the Register 50 

Lodging an objection 100 

Annual subscription to Plant Varieties Journal 40 

Back issues of Plant Varieties Journal 14 

Administration – Other work relevant to PBR 

– per hour or part thereof 75 

Application for declaration of 

essential derivation 800 

Application for 

(a) revocation of a PBR 500 

(b) revocation of a declaration 

of essential derivation 500 

Compulsory licence 500 

Request under subsection 19(11) for exemption from 

public access – varieties with no direct use as a consumer 

69


APPENDIX 2 

Plant Breeders Rights Advisory Committee (PBRAC) 

(Members of the PBRAC hold office in accordance with 

Section 85 of the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994.) 

Dr Paul Brennan 

PO Box 144 

LENNOX HEAD NSW 2478 

Representing Plant Breeders 

Ms Cheryl McCaffery 

Business Development Manager 

UniQuest Limited 

Research Road 

University of Queensland 

ST LUCIA QLD 4072 

Member with appropriate qualifications and experience 

Mr David Moore 

Consultant 

Applied Economic and Technology Services 

PO Box 193 

GAWLER, SA 5118 

Representing consumers 

Mr. Peter Neilson 

Crop and Food Research 

Birrabee Park 

Bowna via 

ALBURY NSW 2640 

Representing Plant Breeders 

Mr Hugh Roberts 

Farmer 

‘Birralee’ 

COOTAMUNDRA NSW 2694 

Representing Users 

Ms Anna Sharpe 

Clayton Utz 

GPO Box 55 

BRISBANE QLD 4000 

Member with appropriate qualifications and experience 

Mr Doug Waterhouse (Chair) 

Registrar, Plant Breeders Rights 

GPO Box 858 

CANBERRA ACT 2601 

27th MEETING OF THE PLANT BREEDER’S 

RIGHTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PBRAC) 

The 27th meeting of the Plant Breeder’s Rights Advisory 

Committee (PBRAC) was held in Canberra on 30 June 

2000. All PBRAC members attended. Two future members 

attended as observers. 

Key matters discussed were: 

The Plant Breeder’s Rights Amendment Bill 2000. 

PBRAC put forward a number of possible improvements to 

the proposed amendments. It was noted that the deletion of 

the current section 18 and the insertion of a new section 18 

would clarify the operation of the Plant Breeder’s Rights 

Act 1994 and would have significant implications for all 

parties. 

PBRAC recommended further communication with 

Attorney General’s Department in respect of fine tuning 

some amendments. In addition, the Committee 

recommended further consultation with some organisations 

regarding the impact of the proposed changes. 

Follow up to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and 

Regional Management (SCARM) Recommendations on 

Breeding Issues. SCARM recommended that 

• the Registrar of Plant Breeder’s Rights should consult 

and communicate widely with the breeding community 

with the objective of providing a clearer explanation of 

breeding; 

• the Registrar should convene a panel of experts to 

provide examples of breeding methodologies that 

conform with the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 and 

internationally accepted practice in accordance with the 

International Convention for the Protection of New 

Varieties of Plants (UPOV); 

• the Plant Breeder’s Rights Office (PBRO) should 

publish, through the Plant Varieties Journal and web 

page, a clearer explanation of breeding to respond to 

current uncertainties and guide applicants with regard to 

essential derivation; 

• PBRO should work with the plant breeding and 

biotechnology industries to clarify ‘essential 

derivation’, develop practical solutions to intellectual 

property management of essentially derived varieties 

and, through this process, examine ways in which 

changes might be made to the Plant Breeder’s Rights 

Act 1994 to better protect the interests of the first 

breeder. 

PBRAC agreed to the establishment of a panel of experts to 

address the above issues and to engage in broad 

consultation with industry on those issues. 

Clarification of Procedures Relating to 

Objections/Revocations. 

PBRAC recommended clarifying procedures regarding 

objections/revocations. This will ensure that there is a 

better understanding of the role of the PBRO in this area 

and that staff of the PBRO deal with such matters to a high 

standard and in a uniform manner. 

Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000. 

PBRAC noted the events leading up to the introduction of 

the legislation and expressed their appreciation for the 

timely intervention of the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries 

and Forestry on behalf of stakeholders in the PBR scheme. 

70


Retiring Members 

The Chair, on behalf of the Committee, expressed 

appreciation to Dr Hare, Ms Peate and Professor Sedgley 

for their outstanding contribution to the work of the 

Committee over a number of years and wished them well in 

their future endeavours. 

APPENDIX 3 

INDEX OF ACCREDITED CONSULTANT 

‘QUALIFIED PERSONS’ 

The following persons have been accredited by the PBR 

office based on information provided by these persons. 

From the information provided by the applicants, the PBR 

office believes that these people can fulfil the role of 

‘qualified person’ in the application for plant breeder’s 

rights. Neither accreditation nor publication of a name in 

the list of persons is an implicit recommendation of the 

person so listed. The PBR office cannot be held liable for 

damages that may arise from the omission or inclusion of a 

person’s name in the list nor does it assume any 

responsibility for losses or damages arising from 

agreements entered into between applicants and any person 

in the list of accredited persons. Qualified persons charge a 

fee for services rendered. 

A guide to the use of the index of consultants: 

• locate in the left column of Table 1 the plant group for 

which you are applying; 

• listed in the right column are the names of accredited 

qualified persons from which you can choose a 

consultant; 

• in Table 2 find that consultant’s name, telephone number 

and area in which they are willing to consult (they may 

consult outside the nominated area); 

• using the “Nomination of Qualified Person” form as a 

guide, agree provisionally on the scope and terms of the 

consultancy; complete the form and attach it to Part 1 of 

the application form; 

• when you are notified that your nomination of a 

consultant qualified person is acceptable in the letter of 

acceptance of your application for PBR you should 

again consult the qualified person when planning the 

rest of the application for PBR. 

TABLE 1 

PLANT CONSULTANT’S 

GROUP/ NAME 

SPECIES/ (TELEPHONE 

FAMILY AND AREA IN TABLE 2) 

Almonds 

Apple 

Swinburn, Garth 

Baxter, Leslie 

Darmody, Liz 

Fleming, Graham 

Langford, Garry 

Mackay, Alastair 

Maddox, Zoee 

Malone, Michael 

Mitchell, Leslie 

Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 

Scholefield, Peter 

Stearne, Peter 

Tancred, Stephen 

Valentine, Bruce 

Anigozanthos 

Paananen, Ian 

Kirby, Greg 

Aroid 

Avocado 

Azalea 

Harrison, Peter 


Barrett, Mike 

Hempel, Maciej 

Paananen, Ian 

Barley (Common) 

Boyd, Rodger 

Brouwer, Jan 

Collins, David 

Khan, Akram 

Platz, Greg 

Berry Fruit 

Darmody, Liz 


Maddox, Zoee 

Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Blueberry 

Pullar, David 

Bougainvillea 

Iredell, Janet Willa 

Brassica 

Buddleia 

Aberdeen, Ian 

Baker, Andrew 

Easton, Andrew 

Chowdhury, Doza 

Cross, Richard 

Fennell, John 

Kadkol, Gururaj 

McMichael, Prue 

Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Tay, David 

Robb, John 

Paananen, Ian 

Camellia 

Cassava 

Cereals 

Paananen, Ian 

Robb, John 

Tay, David 

Alam, Rafiul 

Brouwer, Jan 

Bullen, Kenneth 


Cook, Bruce 

Cooper, Kath 


Davidson, James 

Derera, Nicholas AM 

Downes, Ross 

Fennell, John 

Hare, Raymond 


Henry, Robert J 

Khan, Akram 

Kidd, Charles 

Law, Mary Ann 


Oates, John 

Platz, Greg 

Poulsen, David 

Rose, John 

Scattini, Walter John 


Stuart, Peter 

Vertigan, Wayne 

Williams, Warren 

Wilson, Frances 

71


Cherry 

Chickpeas 

Citrus 

Clover 

Conifer 

Cotton 

Cucurbits 

Cydonia 

Dogwood 

Feijoa 

Darmody, Liz 



Maddox, Zoee 


Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Brouwer, Jan 



Goulden, David 

Ayash, Abdo 

Edwards, Megan 

Fox, Primrose 

Gingis, Aron 

Lee, Slade 

Maddox, Zoee 


Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 



Sykes, Stephen 

Topp, Bruce 

Lake, Andrew 

Miller, Jeff 


Nichols, Phillip 


Alam, Rafiul 


Leske, Richard 

Alam, Rafiul 

Ayash, Abdo 


Herrington, Mark 


Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 




Darmody, Liz 


Maddox, Zoee 


Robinson, Ben 


Fibre Crops 

Ayash, Abdo 

Fig 

Darmody, Liz 

FitzHenry, Daniel 


Maddox, Zoee 

Pullar, David 

Forage Brassicas 


Forage Grasses 

Berryman, Tim 

Fennell, John 


Kirby, Greg 


Slatter, John 

Smith, Kevin 

Forage Legumes 

Fennell, John 

Foster, Kevin 


Hill, Jeff 

Lake, Andrew 

Miller, Jeff 

Slatter, John 

Snowball, Richard 

Forest Trees 

Lubomski, Marek 

Fruit 

Ayash, Abdo 

Beal, Peter 

Darmody, Liz 


Gingis, Aron 

Kennedy, Peter 

Lenoir, Roland 

Maddox, Zoee 

McCarthy, Alec 


Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Fungi, Basidiomycetes 

Cairney, John 

Fungi, Entomopathogenic 

Milner, Richard 

Grapes 

Grevillea 

Hydrangea 

Impatiens 

Biggs, Eric 

Darmody, Liz 


Gingis, Aron 

Lee, Slade 

Maddox, Zoee 


Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 






Hanger, Brian 

Maddox, Zoee 

Paananen, Ian 

Jojoba 

Legumes 

Lentils 

Lucerne 

Lupin 

Magnolia 

Maize 

Myrtaceae 

Dunstone, Bob 

Aberdeen, Ian 

Bahnisch, L 

Baker, Andrew 



Cook, Bruce 

Cruickshank, Alan 

Downes, Ross 

Foster, Kevin 


Imrie, Bruce 

Kirby, Greg 

Knights, Edmund 

Lake, Andrew 

Law, Mary Ann 

Loch, Don 


Nutt, Bradley 

Rose, John 


Brouwer, Jan 




Lake, Andrew 




Paananen, Ian 

Slatter, John 

Dunstone, Bob 

Native grasses 

Quinn, Patrick 

Waters, Cathy 

Neem 

Oat 

Friend, Joe 


Khan, Akram 

Platz, Greg 

Oilseed crops 

Downes, Ross 

Kidd, Charles 


Slatter, John 

Olives 

Onions 

Ayash, Abdo 

Bazzani, Mr Luigi 

Gingis, Aron 

Pullar, David 


Fennell, John 

Gingis, Aron 

72



Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Ornamentals – Exotic 

Abell, Peter 

Armitage, Paul 

Angus, Tim 

Ayash, Abdo 

Barth, Gail 

Beal, Peter 

Collins, Ian 


Cunneen, Thomas 

Darmody, Liz 

Dawson, Iain 


Eggleton, Steve 

Fisk, Anne Marie 

Fitzhenry, Daniel 


Gingis, Aron 


Hempel, Maciej 

Johnston, Margaret 

Kirkham, Roger 

Kwan, Brian 

Kulkarni, Vinod 

Lamont, Greg 

Larkman, Clive 


Lowe, Greg 

Lubomski, Marek 

Lunghusen, Mark 

Maddox, Zoee 



Nichols, David 

Oates, John 

Paananen, Ian 

Robb, John 

Robinson, Ben 


Singh, Deo 


Stewart, Angus 

Tay, David 

Van der Ley, John 

Washer, Stewart 

Watkins, Phillip 

Winfield, Joel 

Ornamentals – Indigenous 

Abell, Peter 

Allen, Paul 

Angus, Tim 

Ayash, Abdo 

Barrett, Mike 

Barth, Gail 

Beal, Peter 

Cunneen, Thomas 

Dawson, Iain 


Downes, Ross 

Eggleton, Steve 


Henry, Robert J 

Hockings, David 

Jack, Brian 

Johnston, Margaret 

Kirby, Greg 



Lowe, Greg 

Lullfitz, Robert 

Lunghusen, Mark 


Molyneux, W M 


Oates, John 

Paananen, Ian 

Robinson, Ben 


Singh, Deo 


Tan, Beng 

Watkins, Phillip 

Winfield, Joel 

Worrall, Ross 

Ornithopus 

Foster, Kevin 


Nutt, Bradley 


Osmanthus 

Paananen, Ian 

Robb, John 

Pastures & Turf 

Aberdeen, Ian 

Anderson, Malcolm 

Avery, Angela 

Bahnisch, L 

Berryman, Tim 

Cameron, Stephen 

Cook, Bruce 

Downes, Ross 

Croft, Valerie 


Kaapro, Jyri 

Kirby, Greg 

Loch, Don 

Miller, Jeff 


Rose, John 

Smith, Raymond 

Scattini, Walter John 

Slatter, John 

Smith, Kevin 


Wilson, Frances 

Peanut 

Pear 

Cruickshank, Alan 

George, Doug 

Tay, David 


Darmody, Liz 


Langford, Garry 


Maddox, Zoee 


Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Tancred, Stephen 


Persimmon 


Petunia 

Paananen, Ian 


Photinia 

Pistacia 

Pisum 

Potatoes 

Proteaceae 

Prunus 

Robb, John 

Pullar, David 


Brouwer, Jan 




Ayash, Abdo 

Baker, Andrew 


Fennell, John 



Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 



Tay, David 

Barth, Gail 

Kirby, Neil 

Robb, John 

Robinson, Ben 


Ayash, Abdo 

Darmody, Liz 




Maddox, Zoee 


Porter, Gavin 

Pullar, David 

Topp, Bruce 

Witherspoon, Jennifer 

Pulse Crops 

Bestow, Sue 

Brouwer, Jan 




Kidd, Charles 

Oates, John 


Slatter, John 

Raspberry 

Darmody, Liz 


Martin, Stephen 

Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Rhododendron 

Barrett, Mike 

Paananen, Ian 

73


Roses 

Sesame 

Sorghum 

Soybean 

Barrett, Mike 


Darmody, Liz 

Fitzhenry, Daniel 


Fox, Primrose 

Gingis, Aron 

Hanger, Brian 

Lee, Peter 

Maddox, Zoee 

Prescott, Chris 

Robinson, Ben 



Swane, Geoff 

Syrus, A Kim 

Van der Ley, John 

Bennett, Malcolm 


Imrie, Bruce 

Khan, Akram 

Slatter, John 

Andrews, Judith 


James, Andrew 

Spices and Medicinal Plants 


Pullar, David 

Stone Fruit 

Ayash, Abdo 

Barrett, Mike 

Darmody, Liz 



Mackay, Alistair 

Strawberry 

Sugarcane 

Sunflower 

Tomato 

Maddox, Zoee 


Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 




Gingis, Aron 




Morrison, Bruce 

Porter, Gavin 

Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Zorin, Clara 

Cox, Mike 

Morgan, Terence 

Tay, David 

George, Doug 


Gingis, Aron 




Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Tree Crops 

Friend, Joe 

McRae, Tony 

Triticale (x Triticosecale Wittmack) 


Tropical/Sub-Tropical Crops 

Ayash, Abdo 


Kulkarni, Vinod 

Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Tay, David 

Winston, Ted 

Umbrella Tree 

Paananen, Ian 

Vegetables 

Verbena 

Alam, Rafiul 

Ayash, Abdo 

Baker, Andrew 

Beal, Peter 



Fennell, John 

Frkovic, Edward 

Gingis, Aron 





Oates, John 

Pearson, Craig 

Pullar, David 

Robinson, Ben 


Tay, David 

Westra Van Holthe, Jan 

Paananen, Ian 

Wheat (Aestivum & Durum Groups) 

Brouwer, Jan 


Khan, Akram 

Platz, Greg 

74


TABLE 2 

NAME TELEPHONE AREA OF OPERATION 

Abel, Peter 02 9351 8825 

02 9351 8875 fax New South Wales 

Aberdeen, Ian 03 5782 1029 

03 5782 2073 fax SE Australia 

Alam, Rafiul 07 5460 1184 

07 5460 1112 fax SE QLD 

Allen, Paul 07 3824 0263 ph/fax SE QLD, Northern NSW 

Anderson, Malcolm 03 5573 0900 

03 5571 1523 fax 

017 870 252 mobile Victoria 

Andrews, Judith 02 6951 2614 

02 6955 7580 fax Southern NSW, Northern VIC 

Angus, Tim 02 4751 5702 ph/fax Australia and New Zealand 

Armitage, Paul 03 9756 7233 

03 9756 6948 fax Victoria 

Avery, Angela 02 6030 4500 

02 6030 4600 fax South Eastern Australia 

Ayash, Abdo 02 9823 4436 

0414 445 733 Sydney Region 

Bahnisch, L 07 5460 1457 

07 5460 1204 fax Australia 

Baker, Andrew 03 6427 8553 

03 6427 8554 fax Tasmania 

Barrett, Mike 02 9875 3087 

02 9980 1662 fax 

0407 062 494 mobile NSW/ACT 

Barth, Gail 08 8303 9580 

08 8303 9424 fax SA and Victoria 

Baxter, Leslie 03 6224 4481 

03 6224 4468 fax 

0181 21943 mobile Tasmania 

Bazzani, Luigi 08 9772 1207 

08 9772 1333 fax Western Australia 

Beal, Peter 07 3286 1488 

07 3286 3094 fax QLD & Northern NSW 

Bennett, Malcolm 08 8973 9733 

08 8973 9777 fax NT, QLD, NSW, WA 

Berryman, Tim 

02 6272 9662 ph/fax 

0427 894 266 mobile ACT region 

Bestow, Sue 02 6795 4695 

02 6795 4358 fax 

0418 953 050 mobile Australia 

Biggs, Eric 03 5023 2400 

03 5023 3922 fax Mildura Area 

Boyd, Rodger 08 9380 2553 

08 9380 1108 fax Western Australia 

Brouwer, Jan 03 5362 2159 

03 5362 2187 fax South Eastern Australia 

Cairney, John 02 9685 9903 Sydney 

j.cairney@nepean.uws.edu.au 

Chowdhury, Doza 08 8303 7227 

08 8303 7109 fax South Australia and Victoria 

Collins, David 08 9622 6100 Central Western Wheatbelt 

08 9622 1902 fax of Western Australia 

0154 42694 mobile 

Cooper, Katharine 08 8303 6563 


Cox, Mike 07 4132 5200 

07 4132 5253 fax Queensland and NSW 

Croft, Valerie 03 5573 0900 


Cross, Richard 64 3 325 6400 

64 3 325 2074 fax New Zealand 

Cruickshank, Alan 07 4160 0722 

07 4162 3238 fax QLD 

Cunneen, Thomas 02 4889 8647 

02 4889 8657 fax Sydney Region 

Darmody, Liz 03 9756 6105 


Davidson, James 02 6246 5071 High rainfall zone of 

02 6246 5399 fax temperate Australia 

Dawson, Iain 02 6251 2293 ACT, South East NSW 

Derera, Nicholas AM 02 9639 3072 

02 9639 0345 fax 


Downes, Ross 

02 6255 1461 ph 

02 6278 4676 fax 

0414 955258 mobile ACT, South East Australia 

Dunstone, Bob 02 6281 1754 ph/fax South East NSW 

Easton, Andrew 07 4690 2666 

07 4630 1063 fax QLD and NSW 

Edwards, Megan 03 5024 5960 

03 5024 7470 fax 

0418 532 354 VIC/NSW 

Eggleton, Steve 03 9876 1097 

03 9876 1696 fax Melbourne Region 

Fennell, John 03 5334 7871 

03 5334 7892 fax 

0419 881 887 Australia 

FitzHenry, Daniel 02 4862 2487 ph/fax Sydney and surrounding 

0417 891 651 mobile districts 

Fleming, Graham 03 9756 6105 


Foster, Kevin 08 9368 3670 Mediterranean areas of 


Friend, Joe 02 6688 6150 ph/fax Northern QLD & NSW 

Frkovic, Edward 02 6962 7333 

02 6964 1311 fax Australia 

George, Doug 07 5460 1308 


Gingis, Aron 03 9887 6120 

03 9769 1522 fax Victoria, South Australia 

0419 878658 mobile and Southern NSW 

Goulden, David 64 3 325 6400 


Hanger, Brian 03 9756 7532 

03 9756 6684 fax 

03 9752 0603 fax 

0418 598106 mobile Victoria 

Hare, Ray 02 6763 1232 

02 6763 1222 fax QLD, NSW VIC & SA 

Harrison, Peter 08 8948 1894 ph Tropical/Sub-tropical 

08 8948 3894 fax Australia, including NT and 

0407 034 083 mobile NW of WA and tropical arid 

areas 

Hempel, Maciej 02 4628 0376 

02 4625 2293 fax NSW, QLD, VIC, SA 

Henry, Robert J 02 6620 3010 


Herrington, Mark 07 5441 2211 

07 5441 2235 fax Southern Queensland 

Hill, Jeff 08 8303 9487 

08 8303 9607 fax South Australia 

Hockings, David 07 5494 3385 ph/fax Southern Queensland 

Imrie, Bruce 02 4474 0951 

02 4474 0952 

imriecsc@sci.net.au SE Australia 

Iredell, Janet Willa 07 3202 6351 ph/fax SE Queensland 

Jack, Brian 08 9952 5040 

08 9952 5053 fax South West WA 

James, Andrew 07 3214 2278 


Johnston, Margaret 07 5460 1240 

07 5460 1455 fax SE Queensland 

Kaapro, Jyri 02 9637 8711 

02 9637 8599 fax Sydney and surrounding areas 

Kadkol, Gururaj 03 5382 1269 

03 5381 1210 fax North Western Victoria 

Kennedy, Peter 02 6382 7600 


Khan, Akram 02 9351 8821 


Kidd, Charles 08 8842 3591 

08 8842 3066 fax 

0417 336 458 mobile Southern Australia 

Kirby, Greg 08 8201 2176 

08 8201 3015 fax South Australia 

Kirby, Neil 02 4754 2637 


Kirkham, Roger 03 5957 1200 

03 5957 1210 fax 

0153 23713 mobile Victoria 

Knights, Edmund 02 6763 1100 

02 6763 1222 fax North Western NSW 

Kulkarni, Vinod 08 9992 2221 


Kwan, Brian 03 5943 1088 


Lake, Andrew 08 8177 0558 

0418 818 798 mobile 

lake@arcom.com.au SE Australia 

Lamont, Greg 02 9652 1285 

02 9652 1924 fax Sydney region 

Langford, Garry 03 6266 4344 

03 6266 4023 fax 


Larkman, Clive 03 9735 3831 

03 9739 6370 

larkman@tpgi.com.au Victoria 

Law, Mary Ann 07 4638 4322 

07 4638 4271 fax Toowoomba region 

Lee, Peter 03 6330 1147 


75


Lee, Slade 02 6620 3410 Queensland/Northern 


Lenoir, Roland 02 6231 9063 ph/fax Australia 

Leske, Richard 07 4671 3136 Cotton growing regions 

07 4671 3113 fax of QLD & NSW 

Loch, Don 07 5482 1522 

07 5482 1529 fax Queensland 

Lowe, Greg 02 4389 8750 

02 4389 4958 fax 

0411 327390 mobile Sydney, Central Coast NSW 

Lubomski, Marek 07 5525 3023 ph/fax NSW & QLD 

Lullfitz, Robert 08 9447 6360 South West WA 

Lunghusen, Mark 03 9752 0477 

03 9752 0028 fax 

0407 050 133 mobile Melbourne & environs 


08 9310 5342 ph/fax 

0159 87221 mobile Western Australia 

Maddox, Zoee 03 9756 6105 


Malone, Michael +64 6 877 8196 

+64 6 877 4761 fax New Zealand 

Martin, Stephen 03 6231 2489 

03 6231 4508 fax 

0418 500198 mobile Tasmania 

McCarthy, Alec 08 9780 6273 

08 9780 6136 fax South West WA 

McMichael, Prue 08 8373 2488 


McRae, Tony 08 8723 0688 


Miller, Jeff 

Milner, Richard 02 6246 4169 

02 6246 4042 fax 

64 6 356 8019 extn 8027 Manawatu region, 


richardm@ento.csiro.au Australia 

Mitchell, Leslie 03 5821 2021 

03 5831 1592 fax VIC, Southern NSW 

Molyneux, William 03 5965 2011 


Morgan, Terence 07 4783 6000 


Morrison, Bruce 03 9210 9251 

03 9800 3521 fax East of Melbourne 

Nichols, David 03 5977 4755 SE Melbourne, Mornington 

03 5977 4921 fax Peninsula and Dandenong 

Ranges, Victoria 

Nichols, Phillip 08 9387 7442 


Nutt, Bradley 08 9387 7423/ 


Oates, John 02 4651 2601 Sydney region, Eastern 


Paananen, Ian 02 4381 0051 

02 4381 0071 fax 

0412 826589 mobile Sydney/Newcastle 

Platz, Greg 07 4639 8817 

07 4639 8800 fax QLD, Northern NSW 

Porter, Gavin 07 5460 1231 

07 5460 1455 fax SE QLD, Northern NSW 

Poulsen, David 07 4661 2944 


Prescott, Chris 

03 5964 2780 ph/fax 

0417 340 558 mobile Victoria 

Pullar, David 03 9415 1533 

03 9419 1317 fax 


Quinn, Patrick 03 5427 0485 SE Australia 

Robb, John 02 4376 1330 

02 4376 1271 fax 

0199 19252 mobile Sydney, Central Coast NSW 

Robinson, Ben 08 8373 2488 


Rose, John 07 4661 2944 


Scattini, Walter 07 3356 0863 ph/fax Tropical and sub-tropical 


Scholefield, Peter 08 8373 2488 

08 8373 2442 fax 

018 082022 mobile SE Australia 

Singh, Deo 

0418 88078 mobile 

07 3207 5998 fax Brisbane 

Slatter, John 07 4635 0726 

07 4635 2772 fax 

0155 88086 mobile Australia 

Smith, Kevin 03 5573 0900 


Smith, Stuart 03 6336 5234 


Snowball, Richard 08 9368 3517 Mediterranean areas of 


Stearne, Peter 02 9262 2611 

02 9262 1080 fax Sydney, ACT & NSW 

Stewart, Angus 

02 4385 9788ph/fax 

0419 632 123 mobile Sydney, Gosford 

Stuart, Peter 07 4690 2666 


Swane, Geoff 02 6889 1545 

02 6889 2533 fax 

0419 841580 mobile Central western NSW 

Swinburn, Garth 03 5023 4644 Murray Valley Region – from 

03 5021 3131 fax Swan Hill (Vic) to Waikere 

(SA) 

Sykes, Stephen 03 5051 3100 


Syrus, A Kim 03 8556 2555 

03 8556 2955 fax Adelaide 

Tan, Beng 08 9266 7168 

08 9266 2495 Perth & environs 

Tancred, Stephen 07 4681 2931 

07 4681 4274 fax 

0157 62888 mobile QLD, NSW 

Tay, David 07 5460 1313 


Topp, Bruce 07 4681 1255 


Valentine, Bruce 02 6361 3919 


Van Der Ley, John 02 6561 5047 

02 6561 5138 fax Sydney to Brisbane and New 

0417 423 768 mobile England area 

Vertigan, Wayne 03 6336 5221 

03 6334 4961 fax Tasmania 

Washer, Stewart 08 9300 9995 

08 9407 5070 fax 

0196 83642 mobile Western Australia 

Waters, Cathy 02 6888 7404 


Watkins, Phillip 08 9525 1800 

08 9525 1607 fax Perth Region 

Westra Van Holthe, Jan 03 9706 3033 



64 6 356 8019 NZ 

02 6356 8019 AUS 

02 6351 8047 fax AUS New Zealand 

Wilson, Frances 64 3 318 8514 

64 3 318 8549 fax Canterbury, New Zealand 

Winfield, Joel 03 9737 9660 Victoria 

Winston, Ted 

07 4068 8796 ph/fax 

0412 534 514 mobile QLD, Northern NSW and NT 

Witherspoon, Jennifer 0407 688 457 mobile South Australia 

Worrall, Ross 02 4348 1900 


Zorin, Clara 

07 3207 4306 ph/fax 

0418 984 555 Eastern Australia 

76


APPENDIX 4 

INDEX OF ACCREDITED NON- 

CONSULTANT ‘QUALIFIED 

PERSONS’ 

Name 

Allen, Antony 

Ali, S 

Baelde, Arie 

Barr, Andrew 

Batta, Rohitas 

Beatson, Ron 

Bell, David 

Birmingham, Erika 

Brennan, Paul 

Breust, P 

Brewer, L 

Brindley, Tony 

Buchanan, Peter 

Bunker, John 

Bunker, Kerry 

Burton, Wayne 

Cameron, Nick 

Chin, Robert 

Chivers, Ian 

Clayton- Greene, Kevin 

Coker, Julian 

Constable, Greg 

Cook, Esther 

Cox, Michael 

Craig, Andrew 

Crane, Peter 

Dale, Gary 

Dear, Brian 

de Betue, Remco 

Done, Anthony 

Donnelly, Peter 

Downe, Graeme 

Draganovic, Oliver 

Eastwood, Russell 

Eisemann, Robert 

Elliott, Philip 

Gibson, Peter 

Gomme, Simon 

Granger, Andrew 

Green, Allan 

Guy, Graeme 

Hall, Nicola 

Harden, Patrick 

Hart, Ray 

Higgs, Robert 

Hill, Jeffrey 

Hollamby, Gil 

Holland, Mark 

Hoppo, Sue 

Howie, Jake 

Irwin, John 

Jackson, B 

Jaeger, M 

Johnston, Christine 

Jupp, Noel 

Kaehne, Ian 

Katelaris, A 

Kebblewhite, Tony 

Kennedy, Chris 

Kimbeng, Collins 

Knights, Ted 

Knox, Graham 

Kobelt, Eric 

Langbein, Sueanne 

Leighton, Alan 

Leonforte, Tony 

Lewin, Laurence 

Lewis, Hartley 

Liu, Chunji 

Loi, Angelo 

Luckett, David 

Macleod, Nick 

Mann, Dorham 

Mason, Lloyd 

Mcdonald, David 

Mcmaugh, P 

Mendham, Neville 

Menzies, Kim 

Milne, Carolyn 

Moody, David 

Moore, Stephen 

Neilson, Peter 

Newman, Allen 

Norriss, Michael 

Oakes, John 

Offord, Cathy 

Oram, Rex 

Patel, Narandra 

Paull, Jeff 

Pearce, Bob 

Peppe, Ivan 

Perrott, Neil 

Pymer, Sally 

Reid, Peter 

Richardson, Maureen 

Rose, Ian 

Rowles, Cherie 

Salmon, Alexander 

Sammon, Noel 

Sandral, Graeme 

Sanewski, Garth 

Saperstein, Sylvia 

Schreuders, Harry 

Scott, Ralph 

Smith, Michael 

Smith, Raymond 

Smith, Sue 

Song, Leonard 

Tonks, John 

Toyer, Christine 

Trimboli, Daniel 

Turner, Matthew 

Vaughan, Peter 

Weatherly, Lilia 

Whalley, R.D.B. 

Whiley, Tony 

Williams, Rex 

Wilson, Rob 

Wilson, Stephen 

Yan, Guijun 

Zeppa, Aldo 

APPENDIX 5 

ADDRESSES OF UPOV AND 

MEMBER STATES 

International Union for the 

Protection of New Varieties of 

Plants (UPOV): 

International Union for the 

Protection of New Varieties of Plants 

(UPOV) 

34, Chemin des Colombettes 

CH-1211 

Geneva 20 

SWITZERLAND 

Phone: (41-22) 338 9111 

Fax: (41-22) 733 0336 

Web site: http://www.upov.int 

Plant Variety Protection Offices in 

individual UPOV Member States: 

ARGENTINA 

Instituto Nacional de Semillas 

Ministerio de Economia 

Secretaria de Agricultura 

Ganaderia y Pesca 

Avda. Paseo Colon 922-3. 

Piso, 1063 Buenos Aires 

Phone: (54 1) 362 39 88 

Fax: (54 1) 349 24 17 

AUSTRALIA 

Registrar 

Plant Breeders Rights Office 

P O Box 858 

Canberra ACT 2601 

Phone: ( 61 2) 6272 3888 

Fax: (61 2) 6272 3650 

AUSTRIA 

Bundesamt und Forschungszentrum 

fur Landwirtschaft 

Sortenschutzamt 

Postfach 400 

Spargelfeldstrasse 191 

A- 1226 Wien 

Phone: (43 1) 73216 4000 

Fax: (43 1) 73216 4211 

BELGIUM 

Ministere de classes moyennes et de 

l’agriculture 

Service de la protection des 

obtentions 

vegetales et des catalogues 

nationaux 

Tour WTC/3- 6eme etage 

Avenue Simon Bolivar 30 

B-1000 Bruxelles 

77


Phone: (32 2) 208 37 28 

Fax: (32 2) 208 37 05 

BOLIVIA 

Direccion Nacional de Semillas 

Secretaria Nacional De Agricultural 

y Ganaderia 

Avda. 6 de Agosto 2006, Edif. V. 

Centenario 

Casilla 4793 

La Paz 

Phone (591-2) 391 953 

Fax: (591-2) 391 953 

BRAZIL 

Servico Nacional de Protecao de 

Cultivares-SNPC 

(National Plant Varieties Protection 

Service) 

Secretaria de Desenvolvimento 

Rural-SDR 

Ministerio da Agricultura e do 

Abastedimento 

Esplanada dos Ministerios, Bloco D, 

Anexo A 

Terreo, Sala 1-12 

CEP 70043-900, Brasilia, DF 

Phone: (55-61) 218-2433 

Fax: (55-61) 224 2842 

BULGARIA 

Patent Office of the Republic of 

Bulgaria 

52 B, Dr. G. M. Dimitrov Blvd. 

1113 Sofia 

Phone: (359-2) 710 152 

Fax: (359-2) 708 325 

CANADA 

The Commissioner 

Plant Breeders’ Rights Office 

Canadian Food Inspection Agency 

(CFIA) 

3rd Floor, East Court 

Camelot Court 

59 Camelot Drive 

Nepean, Ontario 

K1A OY9 

Phone: (1 613) 225 2342 

Fax: (1 613) 228 6629 

CHILE 

Ministerio de Agricultura 

Servicio Agricola y Ganadero 

Department de Semillas 

Casilla 1167-21 

Santiago de Chile 

Phone: (56 2) 696 29 96 

Fax: (56 2) 696 64 80 

78 

CHINA 

The Office for the Protection of New 

Varieties of Plants 

Ministry of Agriculture 

11 Non Zhan Guan Nan Li 

Beijing 10026 

Phone: (86-10) 6419 3079 

Fax: (86-10) 6419 2451 

COLOMBIA 

Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario 

(I.C.A) 

Division de Semillas 

Calle 37 No. 8-43 

Santa Fe de Bogota 

Phone: (57 1) 232 4697 

Fax: (57 1) 232 4695 

CZECH REPUBLIC 


External Relations Department 

Tesnov 17 

117 05 Prague 1 

Phone: (42) 2 2181 2474 

Fax: (42) 2 2181 2970 

DENMARK 

Afdeling for Sortsafprovning 

Postbox 7 

Teglvaerksvej 10, Tystofte 

DK-4230 Skaelskoer 

Phone: (45) 53 59 61 41 

Fax: (45) 53 59 01 66 

ECUADOR 

División de Insumos 

Ministerio de Agricultura y 

Ganadería 

Avenida Eloy Alfaro y Amazonas 

Quito 

Phone: (593-2) 543 763 

Fax: (593-2) 504 833 

FINLAND 

Plant Variety Board 

Plant Variety Rights Office 

PO Box 232 

SF-00171 Helsinki 

Phone: (358) 01 60 33 16 

Fax: (358) 01 60 24 43 

FRANCE 

Comite de la protection des 

obtentions vegetales 

11, rue Jean Nicot 

F-75007 Paris 

Phone: (331) 42 75 93 14 

Fax: (331) 42 75 94 25 

GERMANY 

Bundessortenamt 

Postfach 61 04 40 

D-30604 Hannover 

Phone: (49 511) 95 66 5 

Fax: (49 511) 56 33 62 

HUNGARY 

Hungarian Patent Office 

Magyar Szabadalmi Hivatal 

Garibaldi-u.2-B.P. 552 

H-1370 Budapest 

Phone: (36 1) 112 44 00 

Fax: (36 1) 131 25 96 

IRELAND 

Controller of Plant Breeders’ Rights 

Department of Agriculture and Food 

Backweston 

Leixlip 

Co. Kildare 

Phone: (353) 1 628 0608 

Fax: (353) 1 628 0634 

ISRAEL 

Plant Breeders’ Rights Council 

The Volcani Center 

PO Box 6 

Bet-Dagan 50 250 

Phone: (972) 3 968 3669 

Fax: (972) 3 968 34 92 

ITALY 

Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi 

Ministero dell’Industria, del 

Commercio e dell’Artigianato 

19,via Molise 

I-00187 Roma 

Phone: (39 6) 47 05 1 

Fax: (39 6) 47 05 30 35 

JAPAN 

Director of Seeds and Seedlings 

Division 

Agricultural Production Bureau 

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 

and Fisheries 

1-2-1 Kasumigaseki – Chiyoda-ku 

Tokyo 100 

Phone: (81 3) 35 91 05 24 

Fax: (81 3) 35 02 65 72 

KENYA 

Plant Breeder’s Rights Office 

Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate 

Service (KEPHIS) 

Headquarters 

Waiyaki Way 

PO Box 49592 

Nairobi


Tel: (254 –1) 44 40 29 

Fax: (254-2) 44 80 40 

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC 

(new member – address to be 

advised) 

MEXICO 

Servicio Nacional de Inspection y 

Certification de Semillas – SNICS 

Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia 

y Desarrollo Rural 

Lope de Vega 125 8 . Piso 

Col. Capultepec Morales 

México, D.F. 11570 

Phone: (52-5) 203 9427 

Fax: (52-5) 250 64 83 

NETHERLANDS 

Raad voor het Kwekersrecht 

(Borad of Plant Breeder’s Rights) 

Postbus 104 

NL-6700 AC Wageningen 

Phone: (31 317) 47 80 90 

Fax: (31 317) 42 58 67 

NEW ZEALAND 

Commissioner of Plant Variety 

Rights 

Plant Variety Rights Office 

PO Box 130 

Lincoln, Canterbury 

Phone: (64 3) 325 63 55 

Fax: (64 3) 325 29 46 

NORWAY 

Planteosortsnemnda 

(The Plant Variety Board) 

Fellesbygget 

N-1432 As 

Phone: (47) 64 94 75 04 

Fax: (47) 64 94 02 08 

PANAMA 

Direccion General del Registro 

De la Propiedad Industrial 

(DIGERPI)\ 

Ministerio de Coercio e Industrias 

Apartado 9658- Zona 4 

Panama 4 

Phone: (507) 227 3987 

Fax: (507) 227 2139 

PARAGUAY 

Ministerio de Agricultura y 

Ganaderia 

Direccion de Semillas (DISE) 

Gaspar R. de Francia No. 685 

c/ Mcal. Estigarribia 

San Lorenzo 

Phone: (595) 21 58 22 01 

Fax: (595) 21 58 46 45 

POLAND 

The Director 

Research Center of Cultivars Testing 

(COBORU) 

63-022 Slupia Wielka 

Phone: (48 667) 535 58 or 523 41 

Fax: (48 667) 535 58 

PORTUGAL 

Centro Nacional de Registo de 

Variedades Protegidas (CENARVE) 

Edificio II da CNPPA 

Tapada da Ajuda 

P-1300 Lisboa 

Phone: (351) 1 362 16 07 

Fax: ( 351) 1 362 16 06 

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA 

State Commission for Crops Variety 

Testing and Registration 


Bul. Stefan Cel Mare 162 

C.P. 1873 

2004 Chisinau 

Phone: (373-2) 24 62 22 

Fax: (373-2) 24 69 21 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

State Commission of the Russian 

Federation 

for Selection Achievements Test and 

Protection 

Orlicov per., 3a 

107139 Moscow 

Phone: (70-95) 204 49 26 

Fax: (70-95) 207 86 26 

SLOVAKIA 


Dodrovicova 12 

812 66 Bratislava 

Phone: (42) 736 85 61 

Fax: (42) 745 62 94 

SLOVENIA 

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and 

Food 

Dunajska 

1000 Ljubljana 

Phone: (386-61) 178 9117 

Fax: (386-61) 178 9120 

SOUTH AFRICA 

National Department of Agriculture 

Directorate of Plant and Quality 

Control 

Private Bag X 258 

Pretoria 0001 

Phone: (27 12) 319 7202 

Fax: (27 12) 319 7279 

SPAIN 

Registro de Variedades 

Subdireccion General de Semillas y 

Plantas de Vivero 

Jose Abascal, 4 

E-280003- Madrid 

Phone: (34 1) 347 66 00 

Fax: (34 1) 594 27 68 

SWEDEN 

Statens vaxtsortnamnd 

(National Plant Variety Board) 

Box 1247 

S-171 24 Solna 

Phone: (46) 8 783 12 60 

Fax: (46) 8 833 170 

SWITZERLAND 

Bundesamt fur Landwirtschaft 

Buro fur Sortenschutz 

Mattenhofstr. 5 

CH-3003 Bern 

Phone: (41 31) 322 25 24 

Fax: (41 31) 322 26 34 

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 

Controller (Ag) 

Intellectual Property Office 

Ministry of Legal Affairs 

34 Frederick Street 

Port of Spain 

Phone: (1 868) 625 9972 

Fax: (1 868) 624 1221 

UKRAINE 

State Patent Office of Ukraine 

8 Lvov Square 

254655 Kiev 53, GSP- 655 

Phone: (880 44) 212 50 82 

Fax: (880 44) 212 34 49 

UNITED KINGDOM 

The Plant Variety Rights Office 

White House Lane 

Huntingdon Road 

Cambridge CB3 OLF 

Phone: (44 1223) 34 23 81 

Fax: (44 1223) 34 23 86 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

(For PVP) 

The Commissioner 

Plant Variety Protection Office 

79


Agricultural Marketing Service 

Department of Agriculture 

Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2351 

Phone: ( 1 301) 504 55 18 

Fax: (1 301) 504 52 91 

(For Plant Patent) 

The Commissioner of Patents and 

Trademarks 

Patent and Trade Mark Office 

Box 4 

Washington DC 20231 

Phone: ( 1 703) 305 93 00 

Fax: (1 703) 305 88 85 

URUGUAY 

Ministerio de Ganaderia, Agricultura 

y Pesca 

Direccion General -Servicios 

Agricolas 

Unidad de Semillas 

Ava. Milan 4703 

12.900 Montevideo 

Phone: (59 82) 309 79 24 

Fax: ( 59 82) 39 60 53 

_____________________________ 

EUROPEAN UNION 

(for applications filed within the EU) 

Community Plant Variety Office 

P.O. Box 2141 

F-49021 Angers Cedex 

FRANCE 

Phone: ( 33 2) 41 36 84 50 

Fax: ( 33 2) 41 36 84 60 

CURRENT STATUS OF PLANT 

VARIETY PROTECTION 

LEGISLATURE IN UPOV 

MEMBER COUNTRIES 

Poland 2,5 

Argentina 2 

Australia 3 

Austria 2,4 

Belgium 1,4 

Bolivia 2 

Brazil 2 

Bulgaria 3 

Canada 2 

Chile 2 

China 2 

Columbia 2 

Czech Republic 2 

Denmark 3,4 

Ecuador 2 

Finland 2,4 

France 2,4 

Germany 3,4 

Hungary 2 

Ireland 2,4 

Israel 3 

Italy 2,4 

Japan 3 

Kenya 2 

Kyrgyz Republic 3 

Mexico 2 

Netherlands 3,4 

New Zealand 2 

Norway 2 

Panama 2 

Paraguay 2 

Portugal 2,4 

Republic of Moldova 3 

Russian Federation 3 

Slovakia 2,5 

Slovenia 5 

South Africa 2,5 

Spain 1,4 

Sweden 3,4 

Switzerland 2 

Trinidad and Tobago 2 

Ukraine 2 

United Kingdom 3,4 

USA 3 

Uruguay 2 

(Total 45) 

1 Bound by the 1961 Act as amended 

by the Additional Act of 1972. 

2 Bound by the 1978 Act. 

3 Bound by the 1991 Act. 

4 Member of the European 

Community which has introduced a 

(supranational) Community plant 

variety rights system based upon the 

1991 Act. 

5 Has already amended its law to 

conform to the 1991 Act; most other 

states are in the process of doing so. 

80


APPENDIX 6 

CENTRALISED TESTING CENTRES 

Under Plant Breeder’s Rights Regulations introduced in 

1996, establishments may be officially authorised by the 

PBR office to conduct test growings. An authorised 

establishment will be known as Centralised Test Centre 

(CTC). 

Usually, the implementation of PBR in Australia relies on a 

‘breeder testing’ system in which the applicant, in 

conjunction with a nominated Qualified Person (QP), 

establishes, conducts and reports a comparative trial. More 

often than not, trials by several breeders are being 

conducted concurrently at different sites. This makes valid 

comparisons difficult and often results in costly duplication. 

While the current system is and will remain satisfactory, 

other optional testing methods are now available which will 

add flexibility to the PBR process. 

Centralised Testing is one such optional system. It is based 

upon the authorisation of private or public establishments to 

test one or more genera of plants. Applicants can choose to 

submit their varieties for testing by a CTC or continue to do 

the test themselves. Remember, using a CTC to test your 

variety is voluntary. 

The use of CTCs recognises the advantages of testing a 

larger number of candidate varieties (with a larger number 

of comparators) in a single comprehensive trial. Not only is 

there an increase in scientific rigour but there are substantial 

economies of scale and commensurate cost savings. A CTC 

will establish, conduct and report each trial on behalf of the 

applicant. 

The PBR office has amended its fees so that cost savings 

can be passed to applicants who choose to test their varieties 

in a CTC. Accordingly, when 5 or more candidate varieties 

of the same genus are tested simultaneously, each will 

qualify for the CTC examination fee of $800. This is a 

saving of nearly 40% over the normal fee of $1400. 

Trials containing less than 5 candidate varieties capable of 

being examined simultaneously will not be considered as 

Centralised test trials regardless of the authorisation of the 

facility. Candidate varieties in non-qualifying small trials 

will not qualify for CTC reduction of examination fees. 

Establishments wishing to be authorised as a CTC may 

apply in writing to the PBR office outlining their claims 

against the selection criteria. Initially, only one CTC will be 

authorised for each genus. Exemptions to this rule can be 

claimed due to special circumstances, industry needs and 

quarantine regulations. Authorisations will be reviewed 

periodically. 

Authorisation of CTCs is not aimed solely at large research 

institutions. Smaller establishments with appropriate 

facilities and experience, can also apply for CTC status. 

There is no cost for authorisation as a CTC. 

APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORISATION AS A 

‘CENTRALISED TESTING CENTRE’ 

Establishments interested in gaining authorisation as a 

Centralised Testing Centre should apply in writing 

addressing each of the Conditions and Selection Criteria 

outlined below. 

Conditions and Selection Criteria 

To be authorised as a CTC, the following conditions and 

criteria will need to be met: 

Appropriate facilities 

While in part determined by the genera being tested, all 

establishments must have facilities that allow the conduct 

and completion of moderate to large scale scientific 

experiments without undue environmental influences. 

Again dependent on genera, a range of complementary 

testing and propagation facilities (e.g. outdoor, glasshouse, 

shadehouse, tissue culture stations ) is desirable. 

Experienced staff 

Adequately trained staff, and access to appropriately 

accredited Qualified Persons, with a history of successful 

PVR/PBR applications will need to be available for all 

stages of the trial from planting to the presentation of the 

analysed data. These staff will require the authority to 

ensure timely maintenance of the trial. Where provided by 

the PBR office, the protocol and technical guidelines for the 

conduct of the trial must be followed. 

Substantial industry support 

Normally the establishment will be recognised by a state or 

national industry society or association. This may 

include/be replaced by a written commitment from major 

nurseries or other applicants, who have a history of 

regularly making applications for PBR in Australia, to use 

the facility. 

Capability for long term storage of genetic material 

Depending upon the genus, a CTC must be in a position to 

make a long term commitment to collect and maintain, at 

minimal cost, genetic resources of vegetatively propagated 

species as a source of comparative varieties. Applicants 

indicating a willingness to act as a national genetic resource 

centre in perpetuity will be favoured. 

Contract testing for 3rd Parties 

Unless exempted in writing by the PBR office operators of 

a CTC must be prepared to test varieties submitted by a 

third party. 

Relationship between CTC and 3rd Parties 

A formal arrangement between the CTC and any third party 

including fees for service will need to be prepared and 

signed before the commencement of the trial. It will include 

among other things: how the plant material will be delivered 

(e.g. date, stage of development plant, condition etc); allow 

the applicant and/or their agent and QP access to the site 

during normal working hours; and release the use of all trial 

data to the owners of the varieties included in the trial. 

One trial at a time 

Unless exempted in writing by the PBR office, all 

candidates and comparators should be tested in a single 

trial. 

81


One CTC per genus 

Normally only one CTC will be authorised to test a genus. 

Special circumstances may exist (environmental factors, 

quarantine etc) to allow more than one CTC per genus, 

though a special case will need to be made to the PBR 

office. More than one CTC maybe allowed for roses. 

One CTC may be authorised to test more than one genus. 

Authorised Centralised Test Centres (CTCs) 

Following publication of applications for accreditation and ensuing public comment, the following organisations/individuals 

are authorised to act as CTCs. Any special conditions are also listed. 

Name Location Approved Facilities Name of QP Date of accreditation 

Genera 

Agriculture Victoria, Toolangi, VIC Potato Outdoor, field, R Kirkham 31/3/97 

National Potato greenhouse, tissue G Wilson 

Improvement Centre 

culture laboratory 

Bureau of Sugar Cairns, Tully, Saccharum Field, glasshouse, M Cox 30/6/97 

Experiment Stations Ingham, Ayr, tissue culture, 

Mackay, Bundaberg, 

pathology 

Brisbane QLD 

Ag-Seed Research Horsham and Canola Field, glasshouse, G Kadkol 30/6/97 

other sites 

shadehouse, laboratory 

and biochemical 

analyses 

Agriculture Western Northam WA Wheat Field, laboratory D Collins 30/6/97 


University of Sydney, Camden, NSW Argyranthemum, Outdoor, field, . J Oates 30/6/97 

Plant Breeding Diascia, Mandevilla, irrigation, greenhouses 

Institute Oats with controlled microclimates, 

controlled 

environment rooms, 

tissue culture, 

molecular genetics and 

cytology lab 

Boulters Nurseries Monbulk, VIC Clematis Outdoor, shadehouse, M Lunghusen 30/9/97 

Monbulk Pty Ltd 

greenhouse 

Geranium Cottage Galston, NSW Pelargonium Field, controlled I Paananen 30/11/97 

Nursery 

environment house 

Agriculture Victoria Hamilton, VIC Perennial ryegrass, Field, shadehouse, V Gellert 30/6/98 

tall fescue, glasshouse, growth M Anderson 

tall wheat grass, chambers. Irrigation. 

white clover, Pathology and tissue 

persian clover culture. Access to 

DNA and molecular 

marker technology. 

Cold storage. 

Koala Blooms Monbulk, VIC Bracteantha Outdoor, irrigation M Lunghusen 30/6/98 

Redlands Nursery Redland Bay, QLD Aglaonema Outdoor, shadehouse, K Bunker 30/6/98 

glasshouse and indoor 

facilities 

Protected Plant Macquarie Fields, New Guinea Glasshouse I Paananen 30/9/98 

Promotions NSW Impatiens including 


and its hybrids 

University of Lawes, QLD Some tropical Field, irrigation, D Hanger 30/9/98 

Queensland, pastures glasshouse, small 

Gatton College 

phytotron, plant 

nursery & propagation, 

tissue culture, seed 

and chemical lab, 

cool storage 

Jan and Peter Iredell Moggill, QLD Bougainvillea Outdoor, shadehouse J Iredell 30/9/98 

82


Protected Plant Macquarie Fields, Verbena Glasshouse I Paananen 31/12/98 

Promotions 

NSW 

Avondale Nurseries Glenorie, NSW Agapanthus Greenhouse, tissue I Paananen 31/12/98 

Ltd 

culture with 

commercial 

partnership 

Paradise Plants Kulnura, NSW Camellia, Lavandula, Field, glasshouse, J Robb 31/12/98 

Osmanthus, shadehouse, irrigation, 

Ceratopetalum tissue culture lab 

Prescott Roses Berwick, VIC Rosa Field, controlled C Prescott 31/12/98 

environment 

greenhouses 

F & I Baguley Clayton South, Euphorbia Controlled G Guy 31/3/99 

Flower and Plant VIC glasshouses, 

Growers 

quarantine facilities, 

tissue culture 

Paradise Plants Kulnura, NSW Limonium, Field, glasshouse, J Robb 

Raphiolepis, shadehouse, irrigation, 

Eriostemon, 

Lonicera, Jasminum tissue culture lab 

Ramm Pty Ltd Macquarie Fields, Angelonia Glasshouse I Paananen 

NSW 

Carol’s Propagation Alexandra Hills, Cuphea Field beds, wide C Milne 

QLD 

range of comparative 

varieties 

The following applications are pending: 

Name Location Genera applied for Facilities Name of QP 

Outeniqua Nursery Monbulk, VIC Unspecified Outdoor, glasshouse 

University of Lawes, QLD Ornamental & bedding sp., Field, irrigation, L Bahnisch 

Queensland, wheat, millet, Prunus, glasshouse, small R Fletcher 

Gatton College Capsicum, Glycine, phytotron, plant nursery D George 

Ipomea, Vigna, & propagation, tissue M Johnston 

Lycopersicon, culture, seed and G Lewis 

Asian vegetables, chemical lab, G Porter 

Tropical fruits, Solanum cool storage D Tay 

A Wearing 

D Hanger 

Comments (both for or against) either the continued accreditation of a CTC or applications to become a CTC are invited. 

Written comments are confidential and should be addressed to: 

The Registrar 

Plant Breeders Rights Office 

PO Box 858 

CANBERRA ACT 2601 

Fax (02) 6272 3650 

Closing date for comment: 30 September 2000. 

83


APPENDIX 7 

LIST OF CLASSES FOR VARIETY 

DENOMINATION PURPOSES 1 

As amended by the Council at its twenty-fifth ordinary 

session, on October 25, 1991. 

[Recommendation 9 

For the purposes of the fourth sentence of Article 13(2) 

of the Convention, all taxonomic units are considered 

closely related that belong to the same botanical genus or 

are contained in the same class in the list in Annex I to these 

Recommendations.] 

Note: Classes which contain subdivisions of a genus 

may lead to the existence of a complementary class 

containing the other subdivisions of the genus concerned 

(example: Class 9 (Vicia faba) leads to the existence of 

another class containing the other species of the genus 

Vicia). * 

Class 1: Avena, Hordeum, Secale, xTriticosecale, Triticum 

Class 2: Panicum, Setaria 

Class 3: Sorghum, Zea 

Class 4: Agrostis, Alopecurus, Arrhenatherum, Bromus, 

Cynosurus, Dactylis, Festuca,Lolium, Phalaris, Phleum, 

Poa, Trisetum 

Class 5: Brassica oleracea, Brassica chinensis, Brassica 

pekinensis 

Class 6: Brassica napus, B. campestris, B. rapa, B. juncea, 

B. nigra, Sinapis 

Class 7: Lotus, Medicago, Ornithopus, Onobrychis, 

Trifolium 

Class 8: Lupinus albus L., L. angustifolius L., L. luteus L. 

Class 9: Vicia faba L. 

Class 10: Beta vulgaris L. var. alba DC., Beta vulgaris L. 

var. altissima 

Class 11: Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris var. conditiva Alef. 

(syn.: Beta vulgaris L. var. rubra L.), Beta vulgaris L. var. 

cicla L., Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris var. vulgaris 

Class 12: Lactuca, Valerianella, Cichorium 

Class 13: Cucumis sativus 

Class 14: Citrullus, Cucumis melo, Cucurbita 

Class 15: Anthriscus, Petroselinum 

Class 16: Daucus, Pastinaca 

Class 17: Anethum, Carum, Foeniculum 

Class 18: Bromeliaceae 

Class 19: Picea, Abies, Pseudotsuga, Pinus, Larix 

Class 20: Calluna, Erica 

Class 21: Solanum tuberosum L. 

Class 22: Nicotiana rustica L., N. tabacum L. 

Class 23: Helianthus tuberosus 

Class 24: Helianthus annuus 

Class 25: Orchidaceae 

Class 26: Epiphyllum, Rhipsalidopsis, Schlumbergera, 

Zygocactus 

Class 27: Proteaceae 

COMPLEMENTARY CLASSES 

Class 28: Species of Brassica other than 

(in Class 5 + 6) Brassica oleracea, Brassica chinensis, 

Brassica pekinensis + Brassica napus, B. campestris, B. 

rapa, B. juncea, B. nigra, Sinapis 

Class 29: Species of Lupinus other than 

(in Class 8) Lupinus albus L., L. angustifolius L., L. luteus 

L. 

Class 30: Species of Vicia other than 

(in Class 9) Vicia faba L. 

Class 31: Species of Beta + subdivisions of the species Beta 

vulgaris other than (in Class 10 +11) Beta vulgaris L. var. 

alba DC., Beta vulgaris L. var. altissima + Beta vulgaris ssp. 

vulgaris var. conditiva Alef. (syn.: Beta vulgaris L. var. 

rubra L.), Beta vulgaris L. var. cicla L., Beta vulgaris L. ssp. 

vulgaris var. vulgaris 

Class 32: Species of Cucumis other than 

(in Class 13 + 14) Cucumis sativus + Citrullus, Cucumis 

melo, Cucurbita 

Class 33: Species of Solanum other than 

(in Class 21) Solanum tuberosum L. 

Class 34: Species of Nicotiana other than 

(in Class 22) Nicotiana rustica L., N. tabacum L. 

Class 35: Species of Helianthus other than 

(in Class 23 + 24) Helianthus tuberosus + Helianthus 

annuus 

* The complementary classes have been added by the Office of the 

Union for the convenience of the rader and are given the numbers 28 

to 35. 

1 From UPOV RECOMMENDATIONS ON VARIETY 

DENOMINATIONS, Adopted by The Council of UPOV on October 

16, 1987, and amended on October 25, 1991 

84


APPENDIX 8 

REGISTER OF PLANT VARIETIES 

Register of Plant Varieties contains the legal description of 

the varieties granted Plant Breeder’s Rights. Under section 

62(1) of the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 a person may 

inspect the Register at any reasonable time. Following are 

the contact details for registers kept in each state and 

territories. 

South Australia 

Ms Lisa Halskov 

AQIS 

8 Butler Street 

PORT ADELAIDE SA 5000 

Phone 08 8305 9706 

Western Australia 

Mr Geoffrey Wood 

AQIS 

Level, Wing C 

Market City 

280 Bannister Road 

CANNING VALE WA 6154 

Phone 08 9311 5407 

New South Wales 

Mr. Alex Jabs 

General Services 

AQIS 

2 Hayes Road 

ROSEBERY NSW 2018 

Phone 02 9364 7293 

Victoria and Tasmania 

Mr. Colin Hall 

AQIS 

Building D, 2nd Floor 

World Trade Centre 

Flinders Street 

MELBOURNE VIC 3005 

Phone 03 9246 6810 

Queensland 

Mr. Ian Haseler 

AQIS 

2nd Floor 

433 Boundary Street 

SPRING HILL QLD 4000 

Phone 07 3246 8755 

Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory 

ACT and NT Registers are kept 

in the Library of PBR Office in Canberra 

Phone 02 6272 4228 

APPENDIX 9 

Common Name to Botanical Name Index 

For varieties included in this issue 

COMMON NAME 

Aglaonema 

Alder 

Alfalfa 

Alstroemeria 

Angelonia 

Apple 

Arizona Cypress 

Azalea 

Baby’s Breath 

Bacopa 

Barleria 

Barley 

Barrel Medic 

Barren’s Regelia 

Bean, Narbon 

Bean, Navy 

Black Locust 

Bougainvillea 

Brachyscome 

Brush Box 

Buffalo Grass 

Cabbage Tree 

Camellia 

Canola 

Carnation 

Chickpea 


Clematis 

Clover, Berseem 

Clover, Crimson 

Clover, Persian 

Clover, Subterranean 

Clover, White 

Coast Tea Tree 

Coleonema 

Common Vetch 

Couchgrass 

Croton 

Cuphea 

Dianella 

Diascia 

Easter Daisy 

False Feather 

False Sarsparilla 

BOTANICAL NAME 






























Dianthus barbatus x Dianthus 

superbus 










Trifolium resupinatum var 

majus 


Trifolium subterraneum ssp 

brachycalycinum 




Vicia sativa 



Codiaeum mora 



Diascia spp. 

Aster hybrid 



85


COMMON NAME 

Fanflower 

Field Bean 

Field Pea 

Flamingo Lily 

Gaura 

Geraldton Wax 

Ginger 

Golden Penda 

Grape 

Grevillea 

Hebe 

Impatiens 

India Rubber Tree 

Ivy Leaved Pelargonium 

Japanese Lawn Grass 

Kalanchoe 

Kangaroo Grass 

Kangaroo Paw 

Kiwi Fruit 

Korean Grass 

Lacy Tree Philodendron 

Lavender 

Leucadendron 

Leucospermum 

Lilly Pilly 

Lily 

Lucerne 

Lupin, White 

Mango 

New Zealand 

Christmas Tree 

Oat 

Olearia 

Osmanthus 

Panic Grass 

Paper Daisy 

Peach 

Pelargonium 

Pentas 


Petunia 

Pink Soap Wart 

Pittosporum 

Poinsettia 

Potato 

Prunus Rootstock 

Purple Coneflower 

Rhodes Grass 

Rhododendron 

Rose 

Rosemary 

Ryegrass, Italian 

Ryegrass, Perennial 

Scaevola 

Serruria 



Vicia faba 

Pisum sativum 








Grevillea preissii x Grevillea 

fililoba 

Hebe hybrid 







Kalanchoe spp 




Actinidia chinensis 





Lavandula stoechas ssp. 

luisieri 

Leucadendron gandogeri x 

spissifolium 



Lilium hybrid 


Lupinus albus 



Avena sativa 



Panicum laxum 






Pelargonium xhortorum 


Trifolium resupinatum var 

majus 






Prunus hybrid 




Rosa hybrid 





Serruria florida x Serruria 

rosea 

COMMON NAME 

Shortlived Ryegrass 

Smooth Barked Apple 

Soybean 

Spathiphyllum 

Strawberry 

Sugar Cane 

Sutera 

Sweet Orange 

Syzygium 

Tall Fescue 

Tea Tree 

Torenia 

Triticale 

Variegated Croton 

Verbena 

Vetch, Common 

Vetch, Woolypod 

Vireya Rhododendron 

Wallaby Grass 

Waratah 

Waxflower 

Weeping Fig 

Wheat 

Wheat, Durum 

Zoysiagrass 

Zygocactus 




Glycine max 










xTriticosecale 



Vicia sativa 

Vicia villosa 




Telopea speciossissima x 

Telopea oreades 




Triticum turgidum ssp. 

turgidum 



86

VOLUNTARY CEREAL REGISTRATION 


Register of Australian 

Winter CerealCultivars 

Varietal Descriptions from the Voluntary Scheme for the Registration of Cereal Cultivars 

Recently some procedural changes have been implemented 

in the operations of the Voluntary Cereal Registration 

Scheme. The Plant Breeder’s Rights (PBR) office and the 

Voluntary Cereal Registration Scheme are collaborating to 

ensure that descriptions of new varieties, whether they are 

protected by PBR or not, are made available. 

The Plant Varieties Journal now includes descriptions of 

cultivars registered under the Voluntary Cereal Registration 

Scheme. Please note that publishing a description in the 

Plant Varieties Journal does not automatically qualify a 

cultivar to be protected under Plant Breeder’s Rights 

(PBR). PBR is entirely a different scheme and there are 

specific requirements under the Plant Breeder’s Rights 

Act 1994 which must be satisfied to be eligible for 

registration under PBR. However, it is possible that some 

cultivars published in this section of the journal are also 

registered under PBR. When a cultivar is registered under 

both schemes, the current PBR status of the cultivar is 

indicated in the descriptions. 

A Check list for Registering New Cereal Cultivars in the 

Voluntary Scheme 

Breeders considering submitting a new variety to the 

voluntary scheme should: 

1. Clear the proposed name with Australian Winter Cereal 

Collection (AWCC). The AWCC will query available 

information systems to ensure that the proposed name 

will not be confused with other cultivars of the same 

group and issue a registration number. The timeframe 

for this process will usually be less than 24 hours, and 

can be done by phone, fax or by e-mail. 

2. Complete a registration form, including the 

registration number and forward the form to the 

Voluntary Cereal Registration Scheme – either by an e- 

mail attachment or by ordinary mail on a 3.5 inch a IBM 

formatted floppy diskette. The breeders will be notified 

of the acceptance for a new registration within one week 

of its receipt. 

3. Send an untreated one kilogram (1 kg) reference (or 

type) sample of seed to the Voluntary Cereal 

Registration Scheme for long term storage in the 

AWCC. Please indicate if there are any restrictions on 

the distribution of this seed. Unless advised to the 

contrary it will be assumed that seed samples of 

registered cultivars can be freely distributed by the 

AWCC to bona fide scientists for research purposes. 

4. Provide a description of the new cultivar for 

publication in the Plant Varieties Journal and send it to 

the Voluntary Cereal Registration Scheme in Word for 

Windows or in RTF format – either by an e-mail 

attachment or by ordinary mail on a 3.5 inch a IBM 

formatted floppy diskette. In general, a description 

should contain the following headings: 

• Common name 

• Botanical name 

• Cultivar name 

• Registration number 

• Registration date 

• Name and address of Originators 

• Name and address of Registrar of Cereal Cultivars 

• Released by 

• Synonyms (if any) 

• Parentage 

• Breeding and selection 

• Morphology 

• Disease Reaction 

• Yield 

• Quality 

• PBR Status (if any) 

• Acknowledgment( if any) 

• Breeder 

In addition, you may also include other headings if they are 

relevant to the description of the variety. Please follow the 

general style and format of the descriptions published in the 

current issue. Please note: always format your description in 

a single column, do not format in two columns. Columns 

will be formatted during the publication process. 

The Voluntary Cereal Registration Scheme will 

electronically forward your description to the Plant 

Varieties Journal for publication. Plant Varieties Journal 

reserves the right for editorial corrections and the edited 

versions will be forwarded to the breeder for review before 

the final publication. Publication cost will be charged on a 

cost recovery basis with invoices sent directly from the PBR 

office to the breeder. The nominal cost will be $400.00 (four 

hundred dollars) per variety. 

There is no descriptions from the Voluntary Cereal 

Registration Scheme included in this issue. 

87


Contact information 

Registration 

Publication 

Voluntary Cereal Registration Scheme 

Registrar PBR 

C/- Australian Winter Cereals Collection 

Plant Breeder’s Rights Office 

RMB 944, Calala Lane GPO Box 858 

TAMWORTH NSW 2340 CANBERRA ACT 2601 

Phone: (02) 6763 1149 Phone: (02) 6272 4228 

Fax: (02) 6763 1154 

e-mail: mackaym@agric.nsw.gov.au 

Fax: (02) 6272 3650 

e-mail: Doug.Waterhouse@affa.gov.au 

88

SERVICE DIRECTORY 

WARATAH SEED CO. LTD. 

The Seed Professionals 

Broadacre Crop Seed Specialists 

All Members NSW Registered Cereal Growers 

Will Licence, Sub Licence or Contract grow your 

varieties under Internal, 

Registered or Certified Schemes 

Professional Seedgrowers with 

strong affiliations Australia wide 

“We are ready to grow” 

Contact: 

Chairman Hugh Roberts, Phone (02) 6942 1184 

Fax (02) 6942 3337 

Secretary Bill Freebairn, Phone or Fax (02) 6864 3211 

For assistance regarding Plant Breeders Rights and Trade Marks, 

please contact any of the following 

Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Perth 

Dr Vivien Santer Mr John Terry Peter Williams R. Van Wollingen 

(Plant Breeders Rights) 

Ann Makrigiorgos 

(Trade Marks) 

Telephone (03) 9243 8300 (02) 9957 5944 (07) 3221 7200 (08) 9221 3779 

89

ADVERTISE YOUR NEW VARIETY 

OR SERVICES 

IN THE 


Journal 

ACasual 

Plant Breeders and their agents are invited to take this opportunity to promote their new 

plant varieties by advertising in the Plant Varieties Journal. Consultant Qualified Persons 

are also invited to advertise their services. The Journal is well circulated throughout the 

horticultural and agricultural industry. Advertising in the Journal will promote the 

commercialisation of new plant varieties and the services offered by the qualified persons. Our 

policy is to promote the varieties which are currently in the PBR scheme and the services of 

those who are currently accredited by the PBR office. 

The Journal also has a Service Directory. This Directory is suitable for advertising the services 

provided by Consultant Qualified Persons, Agents, Patent Attorneys, CTC sites or 

photographers. 

Advertising is available at a casual space rate as well as a four times rate, attracting a 

considerable discount of 25%! Advertisements will be published on the back cover or inside 

front and back covers. The front cover is restricted to full colour photographs of a PBR variety. 

Advertising Rates 

4 issues 

Front Cover Colour $1100.00 $3300.00 

Back Cover (Full Page only) Colour 825.00 2475.00 

(Full Page only) Mono 550.00 1650.00 

Inside Front Cover (Full Page) Mono 440.00 1320.00 

(Half Page) Mono 275.00 825.00 

Inside Back Cover (Full Page) Mono 330.00 990.00 

(Half Page) Mono 220.00 660.00 

Service Directory (6cm x 6cm) Mono 55.00 per spot 

For bookings or further information please contact Kathryn Dawes-Read on 02 6272 4228, fax 02 6272 3650 or email 

Kathryn.Dawes-Read@affa.gov.au

52. Volume 13- Number 2 - IP Australia

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?