HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 2 - 19 February 1996

Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents | Top of this page

HORTAX Members' Notes and News Brief notes on the activities of HORTAX members since the last newsletter. E-mail addresses are given where available. Crinan Alexander attended Seattle and went on to visit the Morris Arboretum, Brooklyn Botanic Garden and the Arnold Arboretum. Based at RBG Edinburgh, he is the director of the MSc course in the biodiversity and taxonomy of plants run jointly with Edinburgh University. E-mail: crinan@rbge.org.uk Susyn Andrews attended Seattle. Leads the horticultural taxonomy unit at the RBG Kew and now has a full time assistant to help with the ever-increasing work-load. She visited South-east Asia for six weeks at the end of February 1994 to continue her studies of Ilex. Christopher Brickell attended Seattle and the ISHS Horticultural Congress in Kyoto. He made two trips to China collecting specimens and seed in 1994. He is currently editing a major work for Dorling Kindersley. Retirement from the RHS does not seem to have lessened his considerable work-load! Allen Coombes attended Seattle and the First International Oak Symposium at the Morton Arboretum, Chicago. He is the European representative on the board of the International Oak Society. Based at the Sir Harold Hillier Arboretum as resident taxonomist, he plant-collected in Mexico in 1995 and is hoping to return there in 1996. E-mail: xhhaxxac@hantsnet.hants.gov.uk Niall Green is the newest member of HORTAX and strengthens the group with his in-depth knowledge of vegetables and statutory provisions. He attended Seattle where he gave a fascinating review of his work with vegetables and some agricultural crops using peas as a model. Address: Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, East Craigs, Craigs Road, Edinburgh EH12 8NJ E-mail: green@sasa.gov.uk Sabina Knees attended Seattle. Based at RBG Edinburgh, she has taken over the editorship of The New Plantsman for the RHS as well as continuing with editing the final volumes of the European Garden Flora. E-mail: sabina@rbge.org.uk Alan Leslie attended Seattle. As Registration Officer for the RHS he is currently revising the entire Rhododendron Register (last published in 1958). He is the secretary of the new RHS Advisory Panel on Nomenclature and Taxonomy which assesses plant name changes (for horticultural use) for the RHS Plant Finder and for the Society's BG-Base plant database. E-mail: acl.reg@dial.pipex.com Tony Lord continues editing the RHS Plant Finder and has recently published a book on planting and gardening techniques at Sissinghurst. He chairs the Floral Trials Committee at Wisley and is a member of the new Science Committee for the RHS. Victoria Matthews, after launching the New Plantsman as Editor, sadly (for us) has left the UK to join her husband at the Fairchild Tropical Garden, Florida. We all wish her well and hope that horticultural taxonomy in the USA will put her talents to good use! She has already been poached back by the RHS as its IRA Registrar for Clematis. Diana Miller attended Seattle and on the way visited a large Pelargonium collection in West Virginia. She also attended a symposium in conjunction with events surrounding the French National Collection of Pelargonium in Bourges. Attended first conference of The Plant Collections Network of Britain and Ireland (PlantNet) at Edinburgh and gave a paper on Standard portfolios. She is deeply involved with the early planning stages of the herbarium for the proposed new science centre at Wisley. Charles Nelson has now left Glasnevin to follow a freelance career in Cambridgeshire. He recently published a bibliography of Thomas Coulter and has also become the editor of the Yearbook of the Heather Society. In February 1994 he visited the Cape for three weeks' field-work. Piers Trehane attended Seattle and the First International Oak Symposium at the Morton Arboretum. Attended the 1994 General Assembly of IUBS in Paris and the 1994 IDS (International Dendrology Society) conference on temperate trees at Bonn. He is Registrar for the RHS as IRA on Conifers. Chief editor of the revised ICNCP, he now acts as Rapporteur to the Commission for the Code and is a member of the IUBS International Commission on Bionomenclature. He has recently been elected Chairman of the Scientific Committee for IDS. E-mail: piers@indhort.demon.co.uk Adrian Whiteley leads the advisory team dealing with the increasing number of botanical and horticultural enquiries at Wisley and is also responsible for verifying the name file in the RHS plant database (BG-Base).

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 2 - 19 February 1996

Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents | Top of this page

Cultivar-groups - A sensible approach Just as we are (almost) happy with the term cultivar, along comes the cultivar-group. Is this going to cause additional confusion? Hopefully not. Its correct use should promote a greater understanding of the variability of cultivated plants, lead to a more precisely defined cultivar and be useful to growers and buyers alike. In fact the cultivar-group is not a new term but dates back to the ICNCP of 1980 (where it was termed simply "group"). Its first and to date, its main use, has been in assigning names in Rhododendron which are no longer taxonomically recognised in the Edinburgh revision by Cullen & Chamberlain. Many of these were given cultivar-group status in the RHS horticultural revision of the genus which appeared in the Rhododendron Handbook of 1980. Before embarking on a definition of a cultivar-group it is necessary to be quite sure what is meant by a cultivar. My understanding of the definition of a cultivar can be compared to a term used in word processing - WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). The cultivar is the most useful category of cultivated plants as it enables growers to define exactly what they are growing, and buyers to ask for exactly what they want. The reference to the method of propagation is particularly relevant. A species is usually variable and purchased plants will not necessarily exactly match others grown under the same name. A cultivar on the other hand, is more strictly defined and is propagated specifically to retain its distinguishing characters. There is little point, for example, in naming a particularly good yellow-flowered form of a plant as a cultivar and then offering seedlings of it if most of them come up red, or even in different shades of yellow. The point behind a cultivar is that if propagated by an appropriate method, it may be distributed and purchased true to name and the buyer will get a plant as close as is possible to the original. This may mean vegetative propagation or it may mean propagation from seed, depending on the type of cultivar. Whichever method is chosen, it should be the one that produces plants as close as possible to the original. By definition a cultivar-group implies variability and contains a number of cultivars or potential cultivars which are not worth recognising together at any botanical level. This assemblage is too variable to be usefully recognised as a cultivar. According to the Cultivated Plant Code, it is possible to recognise such groups as cultivars, but doing so only undermines the value of the cultivar as a WYSIWYG category. As an example, the purple-leaved beeches could be recognised as Fagus sylvatica Atropunicea Group. To this could be assigned any purple-leaved seedling without detracting from the value of any cultivars named and propagated for their particularly good foliage colour. A cultivar-group therefore, can be further subdivided if desired, whereas a cultivar cannot be. It would be possible, for example, to select any number of purple-leaved beeches from the Atropunicea Group and name them as cultivars. It could be argued, that in this case, there is already a perfectly good name to cover purple-leaved beeches - Fagus sylvatica f. purpurea Kirchn. This taxon occurs in the wild but the name is only ever used in a horticultural context. If botanical status were given to this, then why should it not also be given to other variations of equal significance, such as yellow-leaved plants, variegated plants, upright plants etc? If this were followed strictly, would plants showing combinations of these characters be placed in two taxa? For example would Fagus sylvatica 'Purpurea Pendula' come under both f. purpurea and f. pendula? This is clearly unacceptable, but the alternative would be to create more forma epithets to cover the complete range of variation which would very quickly get us back to a situation that the cultivar has thankfully taken us away from, that is, giving botanical status to numerous minor variants just because they consist of more than one clone or can be found in the wild (as can plants very similar to virtually any cultivar). What would happen if a swarm of purple-leaved limes arose in gardens. Would they be given botanical status? What if one purple-leaved lime was found in the wild? Would that be recognised at botanical level or named as a cultivar? The variation within species is accepted, so why can we not accept minor variations as falling within the normal variation of the species and classify them only at a horticultural level when they are introduced to cultivation? The use of the cultivar-group for such variants solves these problems. As the cultivar-group does not come under the authority of the ICBN, it does not need to be treated hierarchically, and one plant could belong to more than one cultivar-group. There are already a number of other categories of cultivated plants which are the equivalent of the cultivar-group. In orchids, (and until recently, rhododendrons) the term grex has been used to designate all the products of one particular cross. This is the exact equivalent of the examples above, except that these are of hybrid origin. We already have cultivars of hybrid origin which are not distinguished in any way from those listed under species. Why should cultivar-groups be any different? In annuals we have the term Series, a marketing term commonly used to group a number of cultivars which share one or more characters, and which is clearly equivalent to the cultivar-group. Cultivar-groups based on hybridity may also be recognised in genera other than orchids and rhododendrons. As an example of this, I recently proposed (The New Plantsman 1(2): 107-113. 1994) the cultivar name Rhus ×pulvinata 'Red Autumn Lace' for a plant previously grown at the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and Arboretum and elsewhere as Rhus glabra 'Laciniata'. As there are other cut-leaved forms of the same hybrid (between R. glabra and R. typhina), I also proposed the name R. ×pulvinata Autumn Lace Group to cover these additional forms in order to keep them distinct from the original cultivar. Without the cultivar-group option the only alternative for providing a distinguishing name for these plants would be either to treat them as the same cultivar although some forms may be inferior to the original, or to give them botanical status, or to name each distinct form as a cultivar. Neither of these options I see as acceptable. Some would argue that a cultivar-group must consist only of named cultivars. Certainly cultivar-groups are useful ways of linking similar cultivars together but to impose this restriction denies us one of the most important uses of the cultivar-group, that is to provide a name for plants similar to, but not identical to, named cultivars. It seems ridiculous that just because it has not been named as a cultivar, a plant could be excluded from a cultivar-group, even though it may be virtually identical to other plants in the same cultivar-group. Most importantly, it is the end-user who should be borne in mind when a cultivar-group is created. It is useful to the grower to know which cultivars fall into such designated cultivar-groups as Tall-growing Group, Red-flowering Group, Weeping Group, etc. It is not as useful to name cultivar-groups for non-taxonomic reasons; for example a group of hybrids all raised by one person may be interesting but would have little relevance if the plants had dissimilar parents, habits, sizes, etc. For this reason names such as Magnolia Gresham Hybrids should not be treated as cultivar-groups (in this case two distinct crosses are involved anyway). The cultivar-group is therefore a useful category in the taxonomy of cultivated plants and its more frequent use would help to solve many nomenclatural problems as well as clarifying the status of plants to growers and buyers. It would also help to remove from the field many doubtfully relevant taxa at the rank of forma, which are often created to deal with plants of only horticultural significance. Allen J. Coombes

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 2 - 19 February 1996

Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents | Top of this page

Cultivar-groups - A systematic approach An invited reply to Allen Coombes by Wilbert Hetterscheid The revised International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP, 1995) stages the term "cultivar-group". This term was proposed by VKC, the Dutch counterpart of HORTAX, as part of its proposal for the revised ICNCP. VKC argued that the term "group" as introduced and defined in the 1980 ICNCP leaves room for accommodating ill-defined populations of cultivated plants that have not reached the status of wide acceptance, which is why they do not have a name, or, put differently, which is why they have not been accommodated in a classification. VKC argued that first and foremost, the systematics of cultivated plants must propose precise systematic categories with which unambiguous classifications can be built and from which a precise nomenclature may emerge using the rules set out in the ICNCP. VKC further argued that since the cultivar is the basal category (basal because in their view it cannot be subdivided), all classifications start by classifying cultivars. VKC therefore argued for the use of the term cultivar-group instead of just "group", which was accepted by the Code Commission and which is now incorporated in the 1995 ICNCP. However, the Commission was divided in its opinion on the restrictions to be put on the definition of the cultivar-group. VKC argued that it must be reserved for named cultivars in order to demonstrate that when a cultivar-group name is used, everyone knows that proper cultivars are included. The meaning of the name of the cultivar-group thus retains its applicability during its entire life span until a new classification renders its use obsolete. Some members of the Commission wanted to define the cultivar-group so that as well as including named cultivars, it might also include unnamed populations of cultivated plants and/or botanical taxa in cultivation (notably formae), which amounts to retaining the "group" of the 1980 Code but only giving it another name. Using this option, the cultivar-group would be not so much a systematic device, rather a non-systematic escape mechanism to accommodate a multitude of taxonomically ill defined entities of cultivated plants. A.J. Coombes's contribution to this issue of HORTAX NEWS is in defence of this liberal approach to cultivar-groups but I hope to be able to demonstrate here that this approach leads to massive confusion. Contrary to Coombes's idea of looking upon a cultivar as WYSIWYG, I prefer to replace the S for "see" by R for "read". First and foremost, reading a name tells us what we may expect to get. This is the general goal of nomenclature, and not just of cultivars but of all categories in the ICNCP. However, when we make ambiguous definitions of those categories, the meaning of their names becomes equally ambiguous. Coombes's Autumn Lace Group in Rhus ×pulvinata illustrates the trap we may run into when cultivar-groups may contain unnamed, unclassified material. The Autumn Lace Group was proposed by Coombes to cover "other cut-leaved forms of the same hybrid". Surely it must also include R. 'Autumn Lace' itself but no such cultivar exists. The cultivar-group would then contain the eponymous cultivar and a population of similar, named cultivars. Coombes's cultivar-group however might contain forms which may be inferior to his 'Red Autumn Lace' (the only cultivar he describes), or they may be better; we just don't know because they have no individual names and therefore there is no literature that we may consult in order to find out what these "other forms" actually are! What it boils down to, is that a nurseryman or other marketeer may label any cut-leafed plant that he thinks has been produced from a cross between R. glabra and R. typhina as R. ×pulvinata Autumn Lace Group and the resulting danger is that an unsuspecting buyer may immediately think that there is an 'Autumn Lace' and that he is being invited to purchase something inferior; that is precisely what must be avoided. When only named cultivars are allowed to be sorted into cultivar-groups, then a plant bought with the label Autumn Lace Group can always be linked to an existing cultivar, its identity and its performance. A prospective purchaser can then be sure that what he buys has been described and apparently judged worthy of cultivar status. That is the positive function of the cultivar-group category, when defined as only containing named cultivars. Coombes, in his critique on this restricted use of cultivar-group, claims that a cultivar-group is also useful "to provide a name for plants similar to but not identical to named cultivars". I sense in this approach, a particular conviction that everything must have a name. Classifying and naming cultivated plants is something we do in order to distinguish good from bad. I see no place for names referring to material of doubtful status and quality. Nomenclature must be used to give a face to what we want people to know is good material. We all know what happens when companies provide names for products that nearly duplicate the existing name of a winner and trick us into buying the inferior. Let's avoid this in the trade of cultivars by using nomenclature to distinguish the good from the bad. Let's not allow plants to be labelled so as to suggest they have certain merits which they may not have, or which cannot be checked when they lack a proper cultivar name. I fear that the cultivar-group will become corrupted because the category will be used as a tool to market everything that does not have proven merits or worse, has a total lack of merit. In Coombes's support of a sensu lato approach to the cultivar-group, I also detect that he uses it partly to accommodate entities "not worth recognising under the Botanical Code". I feel that this is an ill-judged argument which again illustrates the apparent urge to name everything. Why should we want to name everything we can distinguish yet which seems to have no place under the Botanical Code? Who benefits from this? What are these entities? Coombes refers to purple-leaved seedlings of Fagus sylvatica as examples of what we wouldn't want to recognise under the Botanical Code. If a purple-leaved plant is found in the wild, the ICBN solution is to allow the use of F. sylvatica f. purpurea. This is just a device to tell people that such plants may be found and nothing more than that. The ICBN rank provides a name for all these plants, whether we think that useful or not. For such plants in cultivation we have a system providing the opportunity to separate the useful from the useless and that is the cultivar. Why then create a supplementary category in which we re-introduce the very material we have just separated by not recognising it at the cultivar level? When we use the Atropunicea Group to include all unnamed purple-leaved F. sylvatica in cultivation, we create the same phantom as the botanical forma, i.e., a catch-all group containing everything with purple leaves. When we define the cultivar-group so as to contain only named cultivars, the useless material is excluded. Useful but still unnamed material can then be given cultivar names and included in the cultivar-group. Perfectly simple and straightforward. I maintain that for purposes of clarity, the ICNCP categories must be simple, straightforward, precise and well-defined. Coombes's option for the cultivar-group definition does not qualify as such and should be discouraged. The first results of the misuse of the cultivar-group category is seen in The RHS Plant Finder, where an explosion of cultivar-group names, which have not even been properly published, suggests identities that do not exist. The use of the cultivar-group category in The RHS Plant Finder is reduced to a mere "label" for commercial purposes and falsely suggests preciseness. I call upon all users of the ICNCP to consider that it is much more preferable to start out with precisely defined categories and then to see what is not covered by these but which need accommodation, after which debate may lead to proper solutions. We seem to be working in the opposite way at the moment by creating imprecise categories and so encouraging people to focus on ill-defined cultivars. The essence of cultivated plant taxonomy and the pillars of the entire horticultural trade depend upon nomenclatural precision. W.L.A. Hetterscheid Vaste Keurings Commissie, Linnaeuslaan 2a, 1431 JV Aalsmeer, The Netherlands (e-mail: vkc@pbn.agro.nl)

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 2 - 19 February 1996

Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents | Top of this page

Cultivar-groups - A concept in need of clarification The cultivar-group as defined in the 1995 Code is, in my opinion, a clear-cut concept which is already being rather mis-used. As Coombes points out, the origin of this concept dates back to Art. 26 of the 1980 Code which stated "When a species, interspecific or intergeneric hybrid includes many cultivars, an assemblage of similar cultivars may be designated as a group." In retrospect, the term "group" was, perhaps, not a very satisfactory word since it is in such common use (indeed a taxon itself is a group of similar entities) but we are stuck with it. In an attempt to give precision to the term, the 1995 Code deliberately uses the hyphenated word "cultivar-group". My problem with Allen Coombes's approach is that he coined his Autumn Lace Group to accommodate plants (he calls them forms) and not cultivars. I feel that I have to re-state the obvious: a plant is not a cultivar - an assemblage of plants with similar attributes may be recognised as a cultivar so that a plant may belong to a cultivar. This may seem a pedantic point but appreciation of this is critical to understanding the cultivar concept. I share Hetterscheid's unease with using a cultivar-group that appears to contain an eponymous cultivar but which does not. I need to know what is meant by the cultivar-group and I certainly do not want to have to search the literature to find out that no such cultivar exists. What if I was to establish the name Rhus 'Autumn Lace' for a cultivar that did not even fit into Autumn Lace Group? It seems to me that cultivar-group epithets should be readily comprehensible and the best way to do that is either to name them after a well-known cultivar or by using some other obvious descriptive epithet such as Red-flowered Group. The examples in the current Code encourage one to do just this. The 1995 Code is quite specific about the use of cultivar-groups. Art. 4.1 states: "Assemblages of two or more similar, named cultivars within a genus, species, nothogenus (hybrid genus), nothospecies (hybrid species) or other denomination class may be designated as cultivar-groups." The Rhododendron case mentioned in Coombes's first paragraph is covered by Note 1 of Art. 4 which states: "A cultivar-group may also be designated to cover an assemblage of cultivated plants which fall into botanical taxa that are no longer recognised as such or are of doubtful status and which, whilst exhibiting variation, show one or more characters that makes the assemblage of value." This is exemplified by the following: "Rhododendron boothii Mishmiense Group was based on R. mishmiense, a species no longer recognised as such but which nonetheless represents a recognisable component of the variation within R. boothii that continues to have horticultural utility. Any plant referable to the component of R. boothii, reflecting the traditional circumscription of R. mishmiense, may be allocated to this Mishmiense Group." Cultivars may thus be allocated to cultivar-groups that are named after taxa relegated to taxonomic synonomy. The intended application of cultivar-groups is made clear in Art. 4 of the Code and the formation and use of their epithets is described under Art. 19. Moreover the Code, through the plethora of examples scattered throughout, encourages one to construct a cultivar-group epithet from either (a), an established cultivar epithet or (b), a descriptive term in a modern language or (c), the validly published epithet of a "botanical" taxon. I do agree with Wilbert Hetterscheid in his concern with the use of cultivar-groups in the RHS Plant Finder. In recent editions, new cultivar-group epithets arise which are not properly explained to users (and which, from 1996, would not be properly established under the rules of the Code). In many cases, these cultivar-groups appear to represent seed-raised cultivars but it is incorrect to suggest that a perfectly well circumscribed seed-raised cultivar should be re-categorised as a cultivar-group simply because it shows pre-defined variation within its phenotype. Another use of "cultivar-groups" in the RHS Plant Finder seems to be to indicate that what is in cultivation (for sale) under a cultivar name may not be what it should be - perhaps several slightly variable clones of the same cultivar are available. I fail to see how this frequent horticultural event can possibly be expressed by referral of the name to a cultivar-group. Surely this is a different concept altogether. The influence of the RHS Plant Finder is strong, many nurseries adopting its nomenclature verbatim, and one only has to attend a flower show or look at a few nursery catalogues to see that nurseries in the UK are labelling what are obviously cultivars as cultivar-groups and thereby throwing the whole cultivar/cultivar-group concept into confusion. The bottom line in all this is that one does not sort plants into cultivar-groups, one sorts cultivars into cultivar-groups! Hiding within the cultivar-group concept as it is being used above, are other conceptual categories and these need to be analyzed and dealt with after due discussion. As is stated in the preface to the new Code, more work needs to be done on the cultivar-group concept. The editor would be pleased to hear further views on the use and formation of cultivar-group epithets. Piers Trehane

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 2 - 19 February 1996

Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents | Top of this page

Nomenclature of Annuals and Bedding Plants In May 1994, several members of HORTAX met with a number of the principal British seedsmen at Wisley to discuss the multitude of problems and lack of standardisation in naming in the seed market. The meeting proved a very worthwhile "meeting of minds" which removed many misconceptions from both parties. With three members of the ICNCP Commission present, the meeting provided invaluable for the preparation of the Code, and it is hoped that the links between the seed-trade and HORTAX will develop further. Issues of seed nomenclature will be discussed at the Third International Symposium on the Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants (see inside back cover). As meat for the meeting, Graham Rice, a friend of HORTAX and one who has made a considerable study of the seed and bedding trade, prepared the following paper which formed the basis for our discussions. An edited version follows which may draw further discussion in these pages.   Regularising the Names for Annuals and Bedding Plants Graham Rice Introduction The ephemeral nature of annuals and bedding plants, both in terms of their short lifespan and the relentless succession with which one introduction supersedes another, brings particular problems when trying to develop a consistent approach to their taxonomy and nomenclature. The other main difficulty is their apparent unpredictability; some stands of plants are so uniform that they could have been propagated vegetatively while others are confusingly variable. This unpredictability creates doubts as to the status of individual populations or selections; are they cultivars, groups or series? These plants are traded as seed, seedlings or plants in a highly competitive market and it is important to recognise two points. Firstly, companies have little compunction in breaking even the most basic nomenclatural rules if they see a competitive advantage in doing so. Secondly, any system by which the taxonomy and nomenclature of these plants is regularised should be sufficiently discriminating to distinguish between the uniform and the variable, which is what botanists, breeders, growers and gardeners need, yet be sufficiently straightforward for everyone to use and understand with ease. Here I will outline the nature of the problems with which we are confronted when considering annuals and relate these difficulties to the ways in which the plants are bred and marketed.   F1 hybrids In horticultural terms, an F1 hybrid is created by crossing two specially created and maintained inbred lines to produce populations consistent in their characteristics which ideally should be as uniform as if they were propagated vegetatively. It can take ten years to develop a new F1 hybrid bedding plant from first crosses to introduction to the market. The plant breeding company which develops an F1 hybrid (and breeding F1 hybrids is a multinational business) retains control of the parent lines so the F1 product therefore remains an exclusive product, available from only the one source. This prevents piracy and allows the breeder to gain a return on the substantial investment required for its development. Because of the size of the investment necessary, only mass market, high value crops are developed as F1 hybrids - petunias and pansies, but not clarkias or nemophilas.   F1 hybrid series It is usual for F1 hybrids to be developed in series of distinct lines, distinguished usually only by flower colour. So Impatiens Super Elfin Series consists of eighteen lines, all with similar low spreading growth but with flowers in eighteen different shades. The F1lines in a series may or may not have parental lines in common, they may also turn out to be less similar in their fundamental characteristics than the breeder would like and some colours in the Impatiens Super Elfin Series, for example, are taller than others. In addition, the limited pool of genetic material available to breeders may mean that one series is unexpectedly similar to another introduced by a competitive breeder, or that one series may be differentiated from another by characteristics, not normally the subject of traditional taxonomic analysis, such as time from germination to first flowering. In the trade the name of a series of this sort is usually written as Impatiens Super Elfin Series. This refers to the full range as available at any time. It is usual for a number of colours in the series to be released together at first, occasionally preceded by a mixture. More colours may be added as years go by and occasionally colours are dropped. Therefore a series is not a fixed entity but an evolving one. A series also evolves in the sense that after some years on the market, new forms of individual colours in a series may be developed and may replace the original form within the series. It is important to appreciate the distinction between the series which is a number of similar lines differing usually only in flower colour, and the mixture which is a blend of all the colours in the series; the mixture is part of the series. F1 hybrid series - Talking Points * The series is a concept widely used and understood in the bedding plant industry; much less widely so amongst home gardeners. In the recent RHS Award of Garden Merit Plants, Impatiens Super Elfin Series is listed and this carries the implication that every colour (and mixture) in the series is deserving of the award. Also, as the series is an evolving one, new lines introduced after the conferring of the award are, by implication, included. Q: Should the concept of the series be formalised? If so, how can it be defined, as a fixed or a variable entity? * At present a series name is usually given with initial capitals and no single quotation marks e.g. Lobelia Fountain Series (in catalogues the generic name is rarely given italics.) Q: Is it acceptable to cite series names in this way? * Many companies selling seeds to market growers, as distinct from those selling to the packet trade for amateurs, are financially linked to the breeders. There is fierce competition between breeders working in the same field. Occasionally an originating company will make a innovation and the sales arm of a competitor may wish to take advantage. The sales branch of the competing company will make a big promotional splash over the new introduction in their catalogue but because the name is associated with originating competitor will give the whole series a new name. So two identical series may be marketed under two entirely different names, e.g. Petunia Mirage Series sold as Petunia Frenzy Series. Q: Can this highly misleading practice be prevented or discouraged in such a competitive market? Q: Should the Code deal with these substitute names? - if so, how? * In some plants, especially with petunias and marigolds, individual breeders may find it difficult to create a full series with all the colours they wish to see included. In order to create a full series, the breeders may buy in individual colours from a series produced by another breeder and pass the full series off as their own. As their own breeding work develops, their own lines may replace the "bought-ins", or vice-versa. Marigold Espana Series now includes some colours from the Disco Series, although it did not when it was first launched. This simplistic approach to naming conceals the true identity of the plants. Q: Is it possible to take account of this bringing together of disparate entities? If so, how? * Some sales companies, feeling that no one series provides them with exactly the product they need, will turn the slight variations in habit, time to first flowering, or colours in different series to their advantage by formulating a new series from elements taken from a number of series from different breeders. A new series is thus created and given a fresh name, e.g. Petunia Dreamtime Series. Q: Given the lack of openness about the make-up of these "manufactured" series, how should companies be expected to name such plants? F1 hybrid single colours Each series is made up of individual lines, which we can refer to as cultivars; they are usually similar, though not always identical, to each other in terms of eventual plant size, growth habit, speed of growth, leaf shape and size, yet each member of the series is distinct from each other in flower colour and sometimes in leaf colour. As explained above, the individual colours in a series may or may not have parental lines in common. Also, they are not necessarily fixed; one, or even a second replacement version, perhaps with a more uniform growth habit or improved flower count, may be introduced under the original name. Improvements may be made which are commercially of great significance, but which are not the subject of traditional taxonomic examination: the female parent may be changed to produce higher seed yield from a single pollination, while other characters may not change or may change very slightly as a result. As a result the F1 hybrid may look the same but be significantly different genetically. F1 hybrid single colours - Talking Points * The single colours which are the building blocks for the series may be in a state of unpredictable change. Q: Should they be referred to as cultivars? If so, when a distinct replacement is introduced, should it have a new name? * The single colours in a series are habitually referred to in one of three ways; simply by colour e.g. Petunia 'Mirage Red'; by a traditional name for a particular colour or colour combination e.g. Pansy 'Universal Beaconsfield'; or by a fancy name e.g. Marigold 'Beau Brummel'. Q: Should these conventions be included in the Code to ensure consistency? * Occasionally the individual colours of a series are known by descriptive names in the growers market and by fancy names in the amateur market, e.g. Pelargonium 'Multibloom Scarlet Eye' (soft red with a white centre) is known in the U.K. amateur market as Pelargonium 'Multibloom Cherry Fizz' or even as Pelargonium 'Cherry Fizz'. (Of course, they are rarely known as pelargoniums in any market!) Q: This is a clear contravention of the Code, can anything be done about such trade designations? * Occasionally two matched series are brought together into one very comprehensive series, e.g. Pansy Maxim Series and Pansy Crystal Bowl Series have been combined to form Pansy Ultima Series in 27 colours. The separate colours are listed by some companies under the two separate series, by others under the combined series. Q: How can this be regulated under the Code? F1 hybrid mixtures F1 hybrid mixtures are made up in a number of ways. The colours in a series may simply be mixed together in equal proportions, the name of the mixture will usually follow that of the series. So the mixture of Marigold 'Inca Gold', 'Inca Orange' and 'Inca Yellow' is known as Inca Mixed. However, additional unspecified colours may be added to those specified in the series; this may be mentioned in the description, but it may not be. So one supplier lists Petunia Daddy Mixed and states that their mixture contains "the five colours in the series", another states that their mixture includes one additional specified colour; a third only mentions "some additions". All are listed as Petunia Daddy Mixed, but each will look different. Sometimes, especially in the early stages of the development of a series, the mixture may be released before any of the single colours. At this stage it is possible that two different colours in the mix may be the result of a single cross, the F1 segregating in a predictable way. Later, the mix will usually be made up from non-segregating F1s. When additional colours are bought in to boost the range in a series, they may also end up in the mixture but disguised under the mixture name. As series have tended to become larger (e.g. 27 'Ultima' pansies and 18 'Mirage' petunias), partial mixtures may be made up. Pansy Ultima Pastel Mixed is self-explanatory, Petunia Reflections is a mix of the veined types from the Mirage Series. F1 hybrid mixtures - Talking Points * Mixtures made up from a series can be, and are controlled very precisely by mixing to a specific formula. Q: When additional, perhaps unspecified, colours are added should the name change? * The requirements of different markets may vary and so the same colours in a series may be mixed to different formulae for different end-users. For example, the proportion of white in a mix may be increased for some countries. Sometimes the different formulae are sold under the same name in different markets, e.g. Impatiens Accent Mixed is sometimes sold under variants of a name such as Impatiens Deco Mixed and Impatiens Deco Daydream (the latter has a higher proportion of pink). Sometimes they are given entirely unrelated names, e.g. Begonia Lucia, Begonia Devon Gems, Begonia New Generation and Begonia Fantasy Mixture. Q: Given that the constituents may be identical, only the proportions varying, should this be regulated under the Code? Q: Should each name contain some indication of the source, to distinguish it clearly? * Names for mixtures vary from explanatory names linked to a series, e.g. Primula Cantata Mixed, to fancy names which retain a link to the series, e.g. Petunia Frenzy Grand Rapids, to names which carry no link to a series or even indicate that they refer to a mixture, e.g. Begonia Lucia. Q: Should the word "Mixed" or "Mixture" always be part of the name of a mixture? Other controlled hybrids The F1 hybrid is the ultimate expression of the control of sexual reproduction; many populations appear as uniform as clones and the genetic make-up of the constituent plants is almost identical. However, there are two groups of plants whose production is less controlled, and the results are usually less uniform.   F2 hybrids F2 hybrids are produced by uncontrolled pollination within a population of F1 hybrids. The control comes through the production of the initial F1 stock and their selection in order to produce the characteristics required in the F2. Generally F2s are less uniform than F1 hybrids and because segregation occurs, they are rarely true to colour. So except in certain crops like pansies, F2 hybrids are usually available only as mixtures. They are generally highly predictable, but within less rigid limits than F1 hybrids. F2 hybrids - Talking Points * There seems to be just two questions here. Q: What is the status of F2 hybrid mixtures - a cultivar? Q: It seems inevitable that more F2 single colours will become available; what, given their general uniformity, is their status? S1 hybrids Like the F2 hybrids, S1 hybrids (so-called synthetic hybrids) are intermediate in uniformity between F1 hybrids and open-pollinated lines. They are derived from the uncontrolled intercrossing of four or five inbred lines, so most individuals are likely to be F1s but they will be genetically less uniform. Like F1 hybrids they are created in series. So far this remains a minor group; at present only pansies are produced in this way, so perhaps this area does not require specific consideration.   Open-pollinated types Traditionally, annuals were developed not as controlled hybrids but through controlled open-pollination and many still are. A small rigorously controlled population, selected to the highest possible standards, produces the original seed. This seed is used to produce a larger crop, and so on until sufficient seed for the market is produced from a single crop - although perhaps from different sites, even in different countries. As the crop covers an increasingly large area, thorough roguing becomes more difficult, time consuming and expensive. A certain degree of variability is therefore sometimes tolerated to avoid roguing to the extent of producing an unacceptably reduced and uneconomic seed crop. Few seed crops are now produced in the UK, many are grown in Africa, Asia and California so the degree of supervision of roguing by the technical staff depends on the resources and the inclination of individual companies. As anyone can raise a seed crop of an open-pollinated variety, by contrast with the situation with F1 and F2 hybrids, many are available from a number of sources. I explain all this to make the point that in some circumstances, the resultant plants will be highly uniform, while in others they will be more variable. This has implications for the status of its name.   Open-pollinated single colours Uniformity in single colours depends on off-types being rigorously removed from the seed crop; some species are a great deal more unstable than others. Crops of the same species and with cross-fertile species should be sufficiently separated to prevent contamination. Sometimes a great deal of attention is paid to this, sometimes not. Open-pollinated single colours - Talking Points * At their best, open-pollinated single colour lines can be remarkably uniform in all their characters but this can change from one crop to the next. Q: Can these be treated as cultivars? * More than one producer may be providing seed of the same line for the market, and these producers may have different roguing criteria with the result that the stand of plants grown from their seed may vary slightly in their characteristics. At present the stocks from different suppliers are not identified, so this variation is unacknowledged. Q: Should these stocks be identified by including the raiser's name as part of the name? Tagetes 'Tiger Eyes' (King) for example, is distinguished from stocks from other sources in the RHS trial results. Open-pollinated mixtures Open-pollinated mixtures are produced in one of two ways. A mixture may be formulated from separate colours in the same way as is the case with F1 hybrids, and the same comments as to consistency and variability apply - with the additional factor that the uniformity, or lack of it, of open-pollinated constituents should be considered. They may also be produced from a single mixed seed crop. At its most sophisticated this can produce very good results, but in addition to the usual factors, colours known to seed prolifically should be more heavily rogued to ensure a balanced mix of colours in the final crop. When dealing with a mixture of eight or ten colours, exceptional roguing skills would be required - and these are now very scarce, even supposing the producer wished to spend the money on the intensive labour required. A third method is sometimes used in which a supplier will assess a field-grown mixture from one producer and conclude that additional colours are required for his market. These colours may then be bought in from another supplier and added to the harvested field-grown mix. Open-pollinated mixtures - Talking Points * It is here that the greatest degree of variability is possible but for some crops a high degree of consistency can also be observed. Q: How can a nomenclatural system be devised which takes account of these distinctions? [The Editor would like to record his thanks to Graham for this contribution]

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 2 - 19 February 1996

Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents | Top of this page

Authorship of Cultivar Epithets and IRAs All codes of bionomenclature have a common aim - to fix names (epithets in the case of cultivated plants) based on the intentions of the author of that name. Although author citation is not a requirement when using a cultivar epithet, determination of authorship and the date of an epithet has to done as part of proving that an epithet has been properly established. This work is undertaken by International Registration Authorities and other nomenclators who record names of the past as well as new names. Authorship is not always obvious and is often only determined after a number of nomenclatural acts have been fulfilled. IRAs need to collect a range of information about a name (one must remember that their prime object is to collect information on names). It is worth recording some of the various players involved with a new cultivar and its naming. The originator of a cultivar is the person who realises that a cultivar (or potential cultivar) is worth recognising as such. This may or may not be the original hybridiser or breeder in the case of plants arising from a deliberate cross or programme of crossing. In the case of a variant selected from the wild to be a cultivar, the person selecting the plant on recognising the novel attributes (the collector) is generally the originator. The introducer of a cultivar is the person who distributes it for the first time. (This often follows a period of testing for distinctness, uniformity, stability and novelty.) None of these activities involves nomenclature. The nominant performs the first nomenclatural act when choosing a name for the cultivar but that person is not the author as such. If the cultivar name is registered with an IRA, that act is done by successful application from a registrant but even at this point authorship is not effected. The author of a name is the person who actually publishes the name for the first time in a dated work. If a name is first published in a book, trade catalogue or other printed publication, the author is the person associated with that work. In the case of a cultivar name that has been registered with an IRA, the Code rules that the registrant is the author, and not the registrar; this device rewards the registrant for his nomenclatural act by giving him author status. Even in this later case, the mere act of registration does not ensure authorship - someone else may become the author if the name appears in a publication prior to that of the registrar. IRAs are therefore best advised to record the names and addresses of all the players who develop and name new cultivars so that authorship may be properly determined once a name has appeared in print. A major exception to the above occurs when a name is granted under some statutory provision in which case the Code rules that the statutory authority itself becomes the author of a name: citation of the authority as author makes it quite apparent that the formation and application of the name is not necessarily in accord with the rules of the Code but has been effected under some prevailing statutory convention. It also prevents IRAs having to waste time and effort in determining how each statutory authority goes about its business in designating their denominations. For determination of exactly who the author of a name is, the ICNCP refers one to the ICBN which dictates that such is determined on the basis of internal evidence only. Examination of the publication in question is enough and the time-wasting activity of finding out who actually wrote the words becomes redundant (however interesting pursuit of this information might be). Nursery catalogues are often not very helpful in this regard, their purpose being to help sell plants and not to provide nomenclatural information. Usually however the owner, partners or directors of the firm are noted in the publication and these become the authors. In some cases the names of persons are not listed in which case the name of the nursery itself is the author. The "in and ex" facility described in the ICBN remains available where precision is required. Some IRAs have a long history of recording names - indeed many IRAs were originally appointed because they had already done so much work in this field. IRAs need to record two prime sets of information: information about an established cultivar epithet (whether it is acceptable or not) and information about the cultivar itself. Obviously the published nomenclatural details remain in the public domain and this information is for everyone's use. The separate set which records details of the cultivar is tailor-made to suit the group of plants themselves and the requirements of the users of the cultivar. In some cases this secondary set of information may be subject to intellectual property rights. The attributes that make a distinct Hosta cultivar are likely to be different from those which make a distinct Tagetes cultivar and this will be reflected in the design of the registration form, computer database (if used) and the printed register itself. This second set of information may well record details that others may consider rather superfluous such as details of awards and show attributes; this information is, however, essential to those who exhibit cultivars for show purposes. With IRAs being charged with fulfilling the rules of the ICNCP, the essential nomenclatural information should, ideally, be collected and maintained in the same way by every IRA. Whilst Appendix I of the Code sets out what is wanted, no standard format exists as yet. IRAs will, in some cases, have to make alterations to their Registration Forms and in the next issue of HORTAX NEWS, some editorial space will be given over to a discussion on the various fields of information required. Piers Trehane

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 2 - 19 February 1996

Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents | Top of this page

New Checklists and Registers The following recently published Registers and Checklists for cultivar names have come to the notice of the editor of Hortax News who will be glad to post details of any further such publications as they become available. Magnolia The Magnolia Society, "Check List of Cultivated Magnolias", Revised Edition, 1994. Available from the Magnolia Society. Contact: Roberta D. Hagen, Secretary, The Magnolia Society, 6616 81st St., Cabin John, Maryland 20818, USA. Price: on application. Proteas Sadie, Joan, "The International Protea Register", 2nd Edition, July 1995, including a checklist of validly published protea cultivar names. Available free of charge from: Joan Sadie, Private Bag X5015, Stellenbosch 7599, Republic of South Africa. Pyracantha Egolf, Donald R., & Andrick, Anne O., "A Checklist of Pyracantha Cultivars". United States National Arboretum Contribution Number 8, June 1995. Available from: the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, USA (Tel: (703) 487-4650) Price: on application. Saxifraga McGregor, Malcolm, "Saxifrages: the complete Cultivars & Hybrids". 1st edition of the International Register of Saxifrages. The Saxifrage Society. 1995. Available from Adrian Young, 7 Alpha Court, Hockliffe Road, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire LU7 8JW. Price £10.00 including postage world-wide. Schlumbergera McMillan, A.J.S., & Horobin, J.F., "Christmas Cacti - the genus Schlumbergera and its hybrids". Available from: David Hunt, 83 Church Street, Milborne Port, Sherborne, Dorset DT9 5DJ, UK. Price: Softback 15.00 + 2.00 postage UK or 3.00 surface-mail world-wide. Hardback 25.00 + 3.00 world-wide (surface-mail). Payments in UKSterling. Also available from: Rainbow Gardens, 1444 E Taylor Street, Vista CA 92084, USA. Price: on application. HORTAX member Alan Leslie reminds us that the Royal Horticultural Society has published the following Registers and Supplements since those mentioned in Appendix X of the ICNCP. Conifers The International Conifer Register. Part 3: The Cypresses (Chamaecyparis, Cupressus and ×Cupressocyparis). RHS (1992). (ISBN 0.906603.97.8). £3.50 Dahlia The International Dahlia Register (1969). 1st Supplement. RHS (1994). (ISBN 1.874431.22.1). £3.00 Published out-of-order and containing all new registrations from 1969-1986 The International Dahlia Register (1969). 5th Supplement. RHS (1995). (ISBN 1.874431.34.5). £1.50 The International Dahlia Register (1969). 6th Supplement. RHS (1995). (ISBN 1.874431.39.6). £1.50 Dianthus The International Dianthus Register (1983). 8th Supplement. RHS (1991). (ISBN 0.906603.83.8). £1.75 The International Dianthus Register (1983). 9th Supplement. RHS (1992). (ISBN 0.906603.94.3). £1.75 The International Dianthus Register (1983). 10th Supplement. RHS (1993). (ISBN 1.874431.04.3). £1.75 The International Dianthus Register (1983). 11th Supplement. RHS (1994). (ISBN 1.874431.24.8). £1.75 The International Dianthus Register (1983). 12th Supplement. RHS (1995). (ISBN 1.874431.38.8). £1.75 Lilium The International Lily Register (1982). 13th Supplement. RHS (1995). (ISBN 1.874431.33.7). £1.75 Narcissus The International Daffodil Register (1969). 19th Supplement. RHS (1993). (ISBN 1.874431.11.6). £1.00 The International Daffodil Register (1969). 20th Supplement. RHS (1994). (ISBN 1.874431.28.0). £2.00 (Incorporating names without parentages or descriptions from Supplements 15-19 (1988-1993) The International Daffodil Register (1969). 21st Supplement. RHS (1995). (ISBN 1.874431.44.2). £1.50 Orchids Sander's List of Orchid Hybrids. 5 Year Addendum, 1986-1990. RHS (1991). (ISBN 0.906603 82 X). £35.00 RHS Orchid Information System on Compact Disc. Version 3.0 (1993) Part 1 The entire, integrated International Orchid Register with full search/query facilities. Price: on application (about £200.00) Part 2 Containing awards, illustrations and references to the Supplement, Part 1. Price: on application (about £135.00) RHS Orchid Registration on Compact Disc. £175.00 (A slimmed-down version of the RHS Orchid Information System, but retaining the entire International Orchid Register and the principal search/query facilities.) Rhododendron The International Rhododendron Register (1958). 34th Supplement. RHS (1994). (ISBN 1.874431.29.9). £2.00 The above RHS publications are available from: RHS Enterprises Limited, RHS Garden, Wisley, Woking, Surrey GU23 6QB United Kingdom. Fax: (44) 1483 211 003. Prices above do not include postage which should be added as follows: orders under £5.00, add £1.25 for the UK, £2.50 overseas; orders £5.00-£9.99, add £2.25 for the UK, £3.00 overseas; orders £10.00-£29.99, add £4.00 for the UK, £6.00 overseas; orders £30.00-£59.99, add £6.00 for the UK, £9.00 overseas; orders over £60.00, add £10.00 for the UK, £20.00 overseas. Cheques are to be made payable to "RHS Enterprises Limited". Visa/Access/Mastercard/Amex are also accepted but expiry date of the card must be stated.

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 2 - 19 February 1996

Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents | Top of this page

Changes to the Appendices of the Code Please send notice of any omissions, corrections or additions to the Code appendices to the Editor for posting in thus column.   Appendix II - Directory of IRAs Andromeda, Bruckenthalia, Calluna, Daboecia, Erica - For "The Heather Society of Great Britain" read "The Heather Society". Clematis - Ms Matthews fax number: (1) 305 233 1483 Cotoneaster - Allen Coombes's e-mail address is: xhhaxxac@hantsnet.hants.gov.uk

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 2 - 19 February 1996

Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents | Top of this page

Copyright © 2001-2010 The Horticultural Taxonomy Group - Contact us