56. Volume 12- Number 2 - IP Australia

PLANT VARIETIES JOURNAL 1999 VOL 12 NO. 2
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 38º06´ 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.
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 single tabs 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
4