HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 3 - 16 May 1997

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

HORTAX Members' Notes and News Crinan Alexander (RBG Edinburgh) has given up being Director of the MSC Course at Edinburgh to concentrate on the Flora of China with a special interest in the Rosaceae in particular. He attended a workshop meeting on the family at Harvard University in January 1997. Crinan is the chief organiser for the forthcoming symposium. Susyn Andrews (RBG Kew) finished her manuscript on the Aquifoliaceae for the "Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak" and is working with Brian Schrire (in their own time) on a revision of the cultivated Indigofera. Her leaflet "Why Plants Change their Names" which was first circulated at the Seattle Symposium is in constant demand and has been distributed all over the world. Chris Brickell was Chief Editor of the long-awaited "Royal Horticultural Society A-Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants" published by Dorling Kindersley in October 1996. Allen Coombes attended the WCMC regional workshop at CATIE, Costa Rica in November 1996 and helped examine the conservation status of about 125 American Quercus species. He went on to collect oak seed in Mexico for the National Collection at the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and Arboretum and hopes to repeat the trip later this year. Note new e-mail address: hillarb@compuserve.com Niall Green (SASA) is currently involved with helping revise the UPOV guidelines for a number of vegetable groups. He is also helping with the arrangement of information for the ALICE database especially with regard to storing descriptions for current and historical vegetable crop cultivars. Sabina Knees (RHS) continues editing the final parts of European Garden Flora. Volume 5 (Oxalidaceae - Oleaceae under the Engler & Prantl system) is expected to be published by Cambridge University Press in June this year with the remaining volume (largely Compositae) due next year. Her main responsibility remains editing the very successful New Plantsman journal for the RHS and she is hoping to increase world-wide subscriptions, especially within the Americas. Sabina somehow still finds time to travel and in November/December 1996 led the RHS tour to Chile. Alan Leslie (RHS) proceeds with the complete revision of the Rhododendron Register which will be completed in 1998. This huge work is far more than a re-issue of Fletcher's 1958 Register with the annual supplements incorporated; it represents a complete re-editing to provide a revised world standard. Tony Lord. HORTAX members were delighted to learn that Tony was appointed as RHS Associate of Honour at the Society's annual meeting for his services to horticulture. Many congratulations Tony. Diana Miller (RHS) continues planning for the proposed new herbarium at Wisley. Her new book "Pelargoniums - a gardener's guide to the species and their hybrids and cultivars" was published by Batsford (in the UK) last year and contains a number of very useful illustrations including a great many photocopy illustrations of leaves. This book is remarkable in making detailed botanical information accessible to gardeners and is written in non-technical style. Piers Trehane attended ICSEB in Budapest for the session on Bionomenclature and gave a paper on International Registration Authorities. He is a member of the now formally constituted IUBS/IUMS Committee for Bionomenclature. He hopes to finish the next two parts of the Conifer Register in 1998.

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 3 - 16 May 1997

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

Cultivar-Groups again! Following the discussions in the last HORTAX NEWS, a number of views were expressed to the Editor and these will be passed to the Commission when it next meets to modify the Code. In the meantime the following contribution has been submitted from Warren Pollock of the American Hosta Society to call attention to the fact that the cultivar-group concept has recently been extensively applied to the genus Hosta.   A note on cultivar-groups in Hosta Diana Grenfell, in her 1996 book The Gardener's Guide to Growing Hostas (David & Charles, Newton Abbot, Devon, UK and Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, USA), defines more than ten different cultivar-groups. With the current wide interest in hostas, this book may well become a landmark reference for designating and defining cultivar-groups in other horticulturally significant genera. Also trend-setting may be the inclusion of a cultivar-group epithet within (....) after a cultivar epithet. A few examples follow. Hosta Tardiana Group (Grenfell & Grounds 1996) formally, but invalidly, H. ×tardiana, is defined as: "A cultivar-group here designated to cover a range of hybrids raised by Eric Smith in the 1960s and 1970s, all originating from a chance cross made between ... H. sieboldiana 'Elegans' ... and ... H. 'Tardiflora' ...". The most popular member of this cultivar-group, H. 'Halcyon', is listed as: "H. 'Halcyon' (Tardiana Group, TF 1 × 7)". "TF 1 × 7" is the designation Smith used for the progeny of the cross; "1" indicates it is the first generation cross and "7" the 7th hosta labelled. H. Antioch Group: preceding this cultivar-group designation is a listing and description of H. 'Antioch'. H. Antioch Group (Grenfell 1966) is then described as: "A cultivar-group here defined so as to include a number of cultivars with all the above similar characteristics". In addition to H. 'Antioch', H. 'Goldbrook', H. 'Hadspen Rainbow', H. 'Moerheim', H. 'Shogun' and H. 'Spinners' are all included within the cultivar-group. There are similar definitions for H. Elegans Group (prototype H. sieboldiana 'Elegans'), H. Fortunei Group (H. 'Fortunei'), H. Frances Williams Group (H. 'Frances Williams') and H. Tiara Group (formally designated as Tiara Series) amongst others. Dr Warren I Pollock 202 Hackney Circle, Surrey Park, Wilmington, DE 19803-1911, USA

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 3 - 16 May 1997

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

Do we need the term "culton"? Crinan Alexander Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, Scotland, UK The practice of botanical nomenclature is often perceived by outsiders as a highly specialised discipline, engaged in by obsessives who are privy to complex and arcane procedures. This is of course an unfair caricature, though anybody reading the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN or "Botanical Code") for the first time might be forgiven for thinking there to be more than a grain of truth in the statement. The rules of botanical nomenclature are indeed complex; they have to be to perform their task of guiding the botanical community through the pitfalls of choosing and using correct names. In the field of cultivated plants the situation should be different. A diverse range of people is brought together by the need to be familiar with the coining, publishing and use of names at cultivar and associated ranks. It is becoming ever more important that rules and terminology in this area should not only be easily understood, but also followed, by all concerned with plants in cultivation, be they botanist, plant breeder, horticulturist or someone responsible for framing and interpreting national and international legislation. Those involved should aim to make the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP or "Cultivated Plant Code") and its associated terminology as simple and user-friendly as possible. It makes little sense to wring our hands because the Code is not followed, while doing little to make it easier to understand. Unfortunately, there have been recent moves in quite the opposite direction. Far from seeking to simplify terminology, Hetterscheid (1994) and Hetterscheid & Brandenburg (1995) propose introducing the new term "culton", instead of "taxon", for categories such as cultivar and cultivar-group used for cultivated plants. They argue that domestication is a process quite different from evolution, and that cultivars, not being products of nature, are intrinsically different from wild plants. They stretch this point still further by asserting that cultivars should be considered "industrial products". This ignores the fact that the methods by which the vast bulk of cultivars are produced, i.e., selection - sometimes preceded by hybridisation, are parallels of the processes found in nature. Far from producing cultivars "industrially", man merely harnesses natural processes for his own ends. A detailed analysis of the relationship between domestication and evolution can be found in Van Raamsdonk (1995). There may be a case for regarding genetically engineered cultivars as man-made taxa, but not for invoking new terminology. However, some plants in cultivation under cultivar names, do not differ from their wild counterparts. They have merely been collected, cultivated and named. Can it be sensible or helpful to invoke new terminology when talking about such plants in gardens, and return to the accepted model when discussing them in the wild? Can Erica tetralix 'Alba' be a "culton" in gardens, when the identical Erica tetralix forma alba is a taxon in the wild? This situation, where wild and cultivated taxa are co-extensive, is covered by Article 16.2 in the Cultivated Plant Code. In addition, large numbers of cultivars have not been subjected to anything other than selection, be it conscious or unconscious, and are simply manifestations of the natural range of variation within the genotype of the taxon from which they have been selected. While it is true that these phenotypes might never have existed in the wild, they are not the result of artificial hybridisation or any sort of genetic manipulation. It seems illogical to regard them as "industrial products", and thus disqualify them from being taxa. The same argument applies to Hetterscheid & Brandenburg's assertion that taxa (such as genus and species), to which cultivars may be assigned, may be distorted by genetic information or combinations of features, alien to that higher taxon "in an evolutionary sense". Hetterscheid & Brandenburg draw another distinction between cultivars and wild taxa from the fact that cultivars may disappear and then later be reconstituted. Precisely the same phenomenon occurs in nature with the formation of stable allopolyploids following spontaneous hybridisation. This process, involving the same parental species, can be repeated at different times and places, giving rise to the same hybrid taxon. An example of this is Senecio ×cambrensis Rosser, derived from hybridisation between S. vulgaris L. and S. squalidus L. This allohexaploid, first reported from north Wales over 50 years ago, has since reformed independently in Edinburgh (Abbott et al., 1983). Hetterscheid & Brandenburg are also perturbed by the fact that a cultivar name can follow any taxon at the rank of genus and below, and maintain that to be acceptable as a taxon under the Botanical Code, a rank must fit into a single clearly defined slot in the taxonomic hierarchy. In fact, the words "taxonomic hierarchy" do not appear in the Botanical Code, and furthermore, clear allowances are made for just the sort of flexibility to which they object (Article 4). We are familiar with the optional ranks subspecies, varietas and forma, which may be employed below species level. If forma can follow species, subspecies or varietas, and varietas can follow species or subspecies, are we to reject forma and varietas as taxa because they can float in this manner? Their first sentence, and even the title of their paper, reveals some confusion about the philosophical distinction between nomenclature and systematics; they maintain that there has been no drastic conceptual change in the systematics of cultivated plants since the first edition of the Cultivated Plant Code, and they later observe that the more recent editions give no guidance on "classification philosophy". However, codes of nomenclature have never been intended to control or influence the practice of systematics or taxonomy - nor should they. Taxonomists should firstly engage in research, then delimit and assign rank to their taxa, and lastly apply the rules of nomenclature to arrive at correct names. The term "culton" has already made an appearance in the recent edition of the Cultivated Plant Code (Trehane et al., 1995), though it is not the only aspect, which those consulting the Code may find off-putting. The preface declares that because many taxonomists dealing with cultivated plants are familiar with the lay-out of the Botanical Code, the Cultivated Plant Code should follow the same pattern. Should the Cultivated Plant Code really be designed to make taxonomists feel at home, when its target "clientele" should be so different? The preface also exhorts readers not to be intimidated by "the constant and persistent use of seemingly foreign terms". I suspect that many potential users would be happier with a document combining precision with the simplest possible language. Some of these changes to the Cultivated Plant Code relate to recent moves to unite all codes of nomenclature into a single "Biocode" (Greuter, W. et al., 1996). There is at present no consensus on this point, and dissenting views have been put forward by Brummitt (1996), Orchard et al. (1996) and others. Further reflections on the Cultivated Plant Code can be found in Alexander (1996). Acceptance of the culton concept would necessitate changes to both the Botanical and Cultivated Plant Codes. Hetterscheid & Brandenburg (1995) state that these changes would also restore the primacy of the Cultivated Plant Code as the sole Code with authority over the nomenclature of cultivated plants. As cultivars will no doubt continue to belong to the full gamut of higher taxa from genus upwards, it is hard to understand what this means. Further puzzling comments of the different roles of the two Codes are found in Hetterscheid et al. (1996), in which the authors regard it as inconsistent to accept the cultivar and cultivar-group as taxa because the Botanical Code does not "recognise" them. This is a highly circular argument because it somehow assumes that to be taxa they must be governed by the Botanical Code. This may be what Hetterscheid et al. are hoping for, but it certainly is not universally believed. The Botanical Code does recognise the category of cultivar (see Art. 28) but it delegates to the Cultivated Plant Code the task of dealing with the nomenclature of cultivated taxa. If the word "culton" passes into general use, we will presumably also have to reconcile ourselves to terms such as "cultonomy" and "cultonomic". Let us not be so carried away by philosophical concepts that we saddle ourselves with yet more unnecessary and abstruse technical terms and codes of nomenclature which deter the very people they should be designed to serve.   References: Abbott, R.J., Ingram, R. & Noltie, H.J. 1983. Discovery of Senecio cambrensis Rosser in Edinburgh. Watsonia 14:407-408. Alexander, J.C.M. 1996. The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. New Plantsman 3:94-96. (Review) Brummitt, R.K. 1996. "Quite Happy with the Present Code, Thank You". Chapter 3 in proceedings of a mini-symposium on biological nomenclature, University of Maryland Web site: <http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/nomcl/brum.html> Posted 2 Dec 1996. [Note: This page has moved to http://www.diversityoflife.org/reveal/pbio/nomcl/brum.html] Greuter, W. et al. 1994. International code of botanical nomenclature. Regnum Vegetabile 131. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany Hetterscheid, W.L.A. 1994. The culton concept: recent developments in the systematics of cultivated plants. Acta Bot. Neerl. 43:78. (Abstract) Hetterscheid, W.L.A. and Brandenburg, W.A. 1995. Culton versus taxon: conceptual issues in cultivated plant systematics. Taxon 44:161-173. Hetterscheid, W.L.A., van den Berg, R.G. and Brandenburg, W.A. 1996. An annotated history of the principles of cultivated plant classification. Acta Bot. Neerl. 45:123-134. Orchard, A.E. et al. 1996. Harmonised bionomenclature - a recipe for disharmony. Taxon 45:287-290 Raamsdonk, L.W.D. van, 1995. The effect of domestication on plant evolution. Acta Bot. Neerl. 44:421-438. Trehane, P. et al. 1995. International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants. Regnum Vegetabile 133. Quarterjack Publishing, Wimborne, UK.

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 3 - 16 May 1997

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

The Code - Contentious Issues to be Resolved The ICNCP has now been out for 18 months and some useful feed-back is being gathered for consideration in time for the next edition. In the Foreword to the 1995 edition, the Chairman of the Commission emphasised that the new style Code was bound to have short-comings which would only be discovered when the new rules were put to the test. As Rapporteur to the Commission, I outline below some of the problem rules by Article number and make conjectural comments. These, and any other issues that may arise will be discussed by the Commission at their meeting following the Edinburgh Symposium.   Art. 1. Note 1: The culton versus taxon The culton concept as developed and promoted by Hetterscheid and others has been widely discussed and Crinan Alexander's point of view as stated in this newsletter provides further ammunition for debate. I detect a growing use of the "culton" in discussion so those who wish to differentiate between wild and man-made taxa are finding convenience in using this new word. It would be tidy if the Botanical Code dealt with names of taxa while the Cultivated Plant Code dealt with names of culta if only the plant world was so simply divisible. L.H. Bailey discussed this problem in the early part of the century and he recognised two categories of species; those which were natural he termed indigens and those which were man-made he termed cultigens. He foreshadowed the taxon\culton dilemma but eschewed any thought of altering the naming rules in case it upset the international standards already in force. If one was to follow the idea that one Code deals with taxa, the other with culta, what does one do about the grey area in between - the cultigenic "taxon" and the "culton" that has escaped and become part of the local flora? These may be termed "pseudotaxa" (or even "pseudoculta" - or either) and they too must be named under one Code or another. In my opinion, tradition will demand that names such as Solanum tuberosum (potato) and Manihot esculenta (cassava) which are both cultigens be treated as taxa under the Botanical Code although such names could easily be flagged in much the same way that a multiplication sign may be used to flag hybridity. Hopefully, further discussion at Edinburgh will result in the decision whether or not to adopt the culton as an integral part of the next ICNCP. Art. 4: The cultivar-group There seems little doubt that the cultivar-group is being used in more than once sense. The "group" as originally devised for cultivated plants was established to accommodate names that had been sunk under synonymy in a revisional work, yet which represented taxa that had real value to the plantsman. The device enabled names to be reclaimed for cultivated plant purposes and thus provided a basis for maintaining a rather looser taxonomy for the benefit of gardeners etc. In botanical and zoological circles it has long been a tradition to describe a loose or provisional taxonomy by using "groups" instead of providing formal taxonomic classifications and names. This use is what Allen Coombes refers to in paragraph 1 of his article in Hortax News 1(2): 5 (1996). The cultivar-group as championed by others provides for a device to assemble named cultivars on the basis of a user-orientated classification and this use is what Hetterscheid advocated in Hortax News 1(2): 7-10 (1996). There are many examples of named cultivars being collected together into cultivar-groups (see Warren Pollock's note) and this practice is by no means recent. A third use for the term cultivar-group stems from the realisation that a taxonomic unit such as a cultivar may contain too much variation to warrant its maintenance in that category; the individual plants do not (or do no longer) show enough consistency to merit recognition as belonging to a cultivar. This seems to be the thrust of the remainder of Allen's article cited above. If there are three (and there may be more) categories of "cultivar-group" as promoted in the current Code, perhaps the confusion and potential chaos would be avoided if each category had its own terminology which more precisely informed people of the intent behind a classification. It would be easy enough to carry on using the word "Group" in an epithet which might encompass any of the above meanings but the user would be no wiser as to the intent behind the "Group" epithet. Who knows what Wilbert Hetterscheid meant by his formal use of Aster Dumosus Group (in Act. Bot. Neerl. 45(2): 177. 1996)? Unless one had read that publication, one could be forgiven for thinking he meant a group of loosely-aligned species close to Aster dumosus L. when what he actually meant to do was to assemble a number of well defined (named) cultivars under a familiar name in a way that had practical use in the Dutch cut-flower trade. All these categories are useful but the interests of the end-user are not well served by a confusing terminology. I suggest that this issue must be resolved in time for the next edition of the Code and that the new Code has to carefully and precisely define the various categories and lay down rules for the formation of the consequent names. Art. 11: Trademarks and trade designations We need to clarify more clearly the differences between trade designations and trademarks. The Code is clear in its definition of both but people (especially International Registration Authorities) are confused as to how to recognise and separate each entity. On a visit to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in I came across an excellent definition for a trademark: "A trademark is any sign that individualises the goods of a given enterprise and distinguishes them from the goods of its competitors." Any "goods" will have a name which is legalistically termed its "generic name" (an unfortunate term from a botanical point of view!) and a trademark may be formed so as to promote and market the goods of a particular company. The trademark will be used as a replacement for the generic name so as to single-out the goods as originating from a particular source - a quality mark. An example in plants might follow thus: the plant known in England as lady's mantle has the scientific name Alchemilla mollis which is its "generic name". I may decide to re-vamp a market for this by registering a trade mark WIMBORNE WONDER and applying this to the plants instead of using the generic name. So instead of finding Alchemilla mollis in your garden centre, you may find WIMBORNE WONDER® instead. Of course, my sales literature will be telling you why you should be buying my product as opposed to anyone else's. The onus is on the trademark owner to protect his mark and to ensure that the mark itself does not become generic in which case protection becomes lost. This is largely achieved by including the generic name within the promotion literature so as to separate it from the generic name and by including a statement of claim such as "WIMBORNE WONDER® is a trademark of Piers Trehane Inc." which serves to identify the plant as originating from a single source. Trademarks can be a nuisance because they might lead the public into believing they are obtaining something newer or better and this may not always be the case. Moreover, they do not always have to be applied to a single "generic name" but at the owner's discretion may be used as a selling device for any plant whatsoever. Although liable to cause confusion, these marks are a reality and for those companies that can afford to promote and protect them, trademarks can help generate extra revenues. Trade designations are quite different and act as a replacement epithet in a name. They are coined by nurserymen and other traders as a "selling name" in preference to the known cultivar name and as such are deliberately coined against all the international rules for naming plants. Often a nursery or garden centre supplier will change an epithet simply because he thinks another one will help sell his goods more effectively. These designations (one cannot call them "names" as in the sense of a Code) cause great confusion and most definitely can cause people to purchase the same plant under different names in the belief that the stock itself is a different cultivar. In the absence of any legislation to outlaw this practice, the most that one can hope for is that a nurseryman will include the correct cultivar name in the marketing literature and selling label so that a trade designation can be seen for what it is. Generic names are already within the public domain and it is not permitted to turn a generic name into a trademark, but it would be possible to trademark an epithetical trade designation as long as any such trade designation could not have been interpreted as ever having been generic. It is important to maintain the international convention promoted by the Code of using single quotation marks around a cultivar epithet and it is equally important not to use them around trade designations. Of course, if they are used around trademarks, the marks themselves will appear to be epithetical or even generic and any protection they offer the holder may be lost. One particular area in this field does needs to be clarified, that is, what is the status of a cultivar epithet when it includes part of a registered trademark (such as a nursery name) within the epithet? If I register the word TREHANE as a trademark to be used with plant material, and then distribute a number of (say) pelargoniums with the epithets 'Trehane White', 'Trehane Pink' and 'Trehane Red', I am giving the impression that the colour variants have a quality that I wish to promote against anyone else's pelargoniums. It seems to me that by listing these as cultivar epithets, I automatically remove the protection that I was hoping to achieve and that this would happen even if I wrote 'Trehane® Pink'. Trademark law varies from country to country and from time to time such national statutes are modified: much more needs to be learnt about local conventions before the Code can finally deal with trademarks for plants. Art. 16.4: Hybrids The Hybrid Appendix of the Botanical Code is likely to be deleted at the next Botanical Congress and its provisions incorporated into the body of the rules. It is likely that that Code will only deal with the names given to hybrids occurring in the wild. Hybridity is much more common in cultivated plants and the rules for naming such "artificial crosses" will have to be covered by the Cultivated Plant Code. Whatever rules are developed must avoid any name changes and discussion will be welcomed on this matter. In particular, views will be sought on retaining the term "hybrid epithet" for natural hybrids within a genus and resurrection of the "grex epithet" for artificial hybrids as is widely used in orchid nomenclature. Any change should be typographical and not orthographical. Rules for the formation of names for artificial intergeneric crosses will have to be added to this Code in such a way that they are comparable with similar names in the Botanical Code (so as to avoid problems of homonymy). Art. 17.11: Common adjectives as epithets When drawing up the rules for the new Code, the Commission removed many of the prior restrictions on the formation of cultivar epithets and only maintained those which they thought might help prevent confusion. The purpose of Art. 17.11 is quite clearly to remove simple descriptive words such as "Large" or "White" from the inventory of cultivar epithets past, present and future. A number of people have commented on the difficulty they face when trying to determine what may be considered a noun and what an adjective. Taking into account all languages, there are very many words which may be considered as either (e.g., bronze the metal and bronze the colour). Which does one accept? This Article needs re-thinking. Art. 17.13: Names of genera and common names as cultivar epithets This Article is providing Registrars with nightmares! How would most Registrars know what names have been used for genera since 1753? Who is able to examine the common and vernacular names of plants all over the world and in different cultures to see if an epithet can be established under this Article. The rationale was to prevent names such as Rhododendron 'Azalea' and Viola 'Pat's Pansy' which might well cause confusion. In practice this Article goes too far and it is becoming increasingly difficult to operate the rule. New wording is required and much more deregulation. After all, who really believes that the name Solanum tuberosum 'Veronica' might be confusing in the real world? The thoughts above are written to encourage further discussion prior to the Edinburgh Symposium. The next edition of HORTAX NEWS will contain a further distillation of thoughts and any feed-back to the comments I have written will be most welcome.

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 3 - 16 May 1997

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

Changes to the Appendices of the Code Please send notice of any omissions from, corrections to, or additions to the Code's appendices to the Editor for posting in this column.   Appendix II - Directory of IRAs At the 1997 ISHS Congress held in New Zealand, the following new IRAs were confirmed. Catharanthus G. Don (1997) Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research (LACDR), Attn: Mr Wim Snoeijer, Gorlaeus Laboratories, P. O. Box 9502, Einsteinweg 55, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands. {Fax: (31) 71 527 45 11}   Erodium Ait. (1997) The British Pelargonium and Geranium Society, Attn: Mr David Victor, The Old Stables, Church Lane, Hockliffe, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire LU7 9NL, United Kingdom. {Fax: (44) 1525 210070, E-mail: david@victor.u-net.com}   Gentiana L. (1997) The Scottish Rock Garden Club, Attn: Mr Ian Christie, Downfield, Westmuir, Kirriemuir, Angus DD8 5LP, United Kingdom. {Fax: (44) 1575 572977}   Geranium L. (1997) The British Pelargonium and Geranium Society, Attn: Mr David Victor, The Old Stables, Church Lane, Hockliffe, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire LU7 9NL, United Kingdom. {Fax: (44) 1525 210070, E-mail: david@victor.u-net.com}   The next batch of IRA applications will be considered during the International Horticultural Congress in Brussels, Belgium 2nd-7th August 1998. Any application for IRA status should be made in writing to the Chairman of the ISHS Commission for Nomenclature and Registration, Mr C D Brickell, "The Camber", The Street, Nutbourne, Pulborough, West Sussex RH20 2HE, United Kingdom {Fax (44) 1798 815350}. Prospective applicants are strongly advised to read Appendix I of the current ICNCP before making their application.   The following amendments are here made to Appendix II: Woody Plant Genera - The Registrar's e-mail address has been changed to <steveclemants@bbg.org>. Bromeliaceae - The Registrar is now on e-mail at <mizellen@worldnet.att.net>. Cotoneaster - The Registrar's e-mail address has been changed to <hillarb@compuserve.com>. Iris excluding bulbous species - The entire entry is to be replaced with the following: The American Iris Society, Attn: Mr Keith Keppel, PO Box 18145, Salem, Oregon 97305, United States of America. Regional Representation, Australia: Iris Society of Australia, Attn: Helen Reid, 16 Farnsworth Street, Sunshine, Victoria 3020, Australia Regional Representation, France: Société Française des Iris et Plantes Bulbeuses, Attn: Jean Peyrard, 101 avenue de la République, 38170 Seyssinet, France Regional Representation, Germany: Gesellschaft der Staudenfreunde E.V., Attn: Gisela Dathe, Tannenring 57, 65207 Wiesbaden, Germany. Regional Representation, New Zealand: New Zealand Iris Society, Attn: Heather Collins, 156 State Highway 1, Winchester, South Canterbury, New Zealand. Regional Representation, former USSR territories: Russian Iris Society, Attn: Sergey Loktev, P.O. Box 54, 129226 Moscow, Russia. Regional Representation, United Kingdom: The British Iris Society, Attn: Mrs Jennifer Hewitt, Haygarth, Cleeton St Mary, Kidderminster, Worcestershire DY14 0QU, United Kingdom. Magnolia - New address for Registrar: Dorothy J. Callaway, Sweetbay Farm, 4260 Enon Road, Coolidge, Georgia 31738, United States of America. {Fax: (1) 912 227 0578} Nymphaea & Nuphar - The Registrar is now on e-mail at <101647.2525@compuserve.com> and his fax number is to be altered to +(44) 1423 864861 Orchids - The Registrar is on e-mail at <orcreg@rhs.org.uk>. Saxifraga - New Registrar: Dr John Whiteman, 63 Elthorne Avenue, Hanwell, London W7 2JZ, United Kingdom.   Appendix XI - Checklists of Ornamental Cultivars Additions and Corrections Arthur O Tucker and Freek Vrugtman Since the publication of "A Sourcebook of Cultivars Names" presented first in Arnoldia 54(1): 1-64 (1995) and subsequently presented as Appendix XI in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants - 1995, we have been accumulating corrections and additions This accompanies the additions listed in the "New Checklists and Registers" cited in Hortax News 1(2): 22-24 (1996). New cultivar names, principally from North American catalogs, are also listed in the New Ornamentals Database and other software; write for a catalog ($3.00) from Taxonomic Computer Research, PO Box 12011, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605, USA, and/or check Mr Laurence C Hatch's Garden and Botany Software page (http://www.intercenter.net/tcr/) for updated details. [Note: This page has moved to http://members.tripod.com/~Hatch_L/hortsoft.html] Aesculus Dolatowski, J. 1992. A note on two cultivars of horse-chestnut (Aesculus 'Digitata' and Aesculus 'Laciniata'). Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1991:108-115.   Amelanchier St. Pierre, R. G. 1992. Growing saskatoons: a manual for orchardists. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Dept. Hort. Sci., Univ. Saskatchewan.   Aster Hetterscheid, W. L. A., and R. G. van den Berg. 1996. Cultonomy of Aster L. Acta Bot. Neerl. 45:173-181.   Bulbs Bryan, J.E. 1989. Bulbs. 2 vols. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. Ogden, S. 1994. Garden bulbs for the South. Dallas: Taylor Publ. Co. Rix, M., and R. Phillips. 1981. The bulb book. London: Pan Books Ltd. Royal Horticultural Society. 1992. Manual of bulbs. Roy. Hort. Soc. (also published 1995. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press)   Buxus Batdorf, L. R. 1995. Boxwood handbook. Boyce, Virginia: Am. Boxwood Soc. Available from: American Boxwood Society, P. O. Box 85, Boyce, Virginia 22620, USA. Price: $15.00.   Cactaceae Note: Epiphyllum should be more correctly designated as "Epicacti", since these horticultural hybrids involve various genera and species of the Tribe Hylocereeae (Britton & Rose) Buxbaum of the Cactaceae. Jacobsen (1977) should not be cited under Cactaceae. Haselton, S. E. 1951. Epiphyllum handbook. Pasadena, California: Abbey Gard. Press. Meier, E. 1994. Aporophyllums. Haseltonia 2:111-131. Meier, E. 1995. Easter cacti (Rhipsalidopsis; Cactaceae). Haseltonia 3:10-24.   Clematis Evison, R. J. 1995. Making the most of clematis. Nottingham: Floraprint Ltd.   Conifers Anonymous. 1967. Keur van opstanden en beplantingen voor zaadwinning in Nederland. List van herkomsten van naald- en loofhoutgewassen. 1963-1967. Wageningen: Stichting Bosbouwproefstation "De Dorschkamp." Anonymous. 1977. Rassenlijst van naald- en loofbomen voor bos- en landschapsbouw in Nederland (rassenlijst voor bosbouwgewassen bevattende herkomsten en rassen van naald- un loofbomen). 1970-1977. Wageningen: Stichting Bosbouwproefstation "De Dorschkamp." Anonymous. 1988. Aanvulling op de vierde rassenlijst van bousbouwgewassen. Complement to the fourth list of clones and provenances of forest trees. Wageningen: "De Dorschkamp." Anonymous. 1990. Rassenlijst van bomen. Fifth list of approved clones and provenances of trees. Maastricht: Leiter-Nypels B.V. Del Tredici, P. 1987. Tsuga canadensis and its cultivars. Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1986:99-106. Lewis, J. 1993. Additions to the International Conifer Register 1985-1992. Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1992:21-28. Trehane, P. 1995. Additions to the International Conifer Register 1985-1992. Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1994: 61-63. Mitchell, A. 1986. Clones of Leyland cypress. Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1985:97-100.   Cornus Plietzsch, A. P., and H.-H. Jesch. 1994. Cornus. Deutsche Baumschule 12:616-620.   ×Cupressocyparis - See Conifers   Delphinium Note: The RHS is in charge of the international registration of Delphinium cultivars, not the Delphinium Society. Leslie, A. C. 1996. The International Delphinium register cumulative supplement 1970-1995. Roy. Hort. Soc.   Epiphyllum - See Cactaceae   Fagus van Hoey Smith, J. R. P. 1976. The evaluation of Fagus sylvatica cultivars in Holland. Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1975:40-49.   Fuchsia Nijhuis, M. 1994. Fuchsias: the complete handbook. London: Cassell Publ. (also published as Fuchsien-Atlas. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer).   Heliotropium Cooke, I. K. S. 1995. Sweet scent of cherry pie. Garden (London) 120:495-497.   Hemerocallis American Hemerocallis Society. 1989. Hemerocallis check list. January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1988. Am. Hemerocallis Soc. American Hemerocallis Society. 1994. Hemerocallis check list 1989-1993. Am. Hemerocallis Soc.   Hibiscus Hawke, R. G. 1994. Evaluation of Hibiscus moscheutos cultivars and horticultural hybrids. Perennial Pl. 2(2): 18-21. Segall, B. 1995. Hibiscus syriacus. Garden (London) 120:487-491.   Hydrangea Lawson-Hall, T., and B. Rothera. 1995. Hydrangeas: a gardener's guide. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. Mallet, C., R. Mallet, and H. van Trier. 1992. Hydrangeas: species and cultivars. Varengeville, France.   Impatiens Banner, W., and W. Klopmeyer, eds. 1995. New Guinea impatiens. Batavia, Illinois: Ball Publ. Available: Ball Publishing, 335 North River St., Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA.   Iris Note: Omit "While the American Iris Society has published yearly checklists since the 1979 checklist, the 1989 checklist is still in press." Nelson, K. and K. Keppel, eds. 1994. Registrations and introductions in 1993. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Am. Iris Soc. Available: Jerry Gifford, P. O. Box 1414, Antioch, Tennessee 37011, USA. Price: $6.00. Nelson, K. and K. Keppel, eds. 1995. Registrations and introductions in 1994. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Am. Iris Soc. Price: $6.00. Nelson, K. and K. Keppel, eds. 1996. Registrations and introductions in 1995. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Am. Iris Soc. Price: $6.00. Sand, A.W.W. 1921. A study of the pogon iris. M.S. Thesis. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Univ.   Kalmia Weiting, J. 1994. Kalmien - unbekannte Schönheiten aus Nordamerika. Deutsche Baumschule 12:606-608.   Lagerstroemia Knox, G. W. 1995. Crape myrtles. Am. Nurseryman 181(11): 70-74, 77.   Lathyrus Morse, L. L., ed. 1916. Field notes on sweet peas; also historical notes, cultural notes; revised and brought up to date. San Francisco: C. C. Morse & Co.   Lilium Note: Leslie (1982) should be listed as Royal Horticultural Society (1982) to be consistent. Royal Horticultural Society. 1996. The international lily register (1982). 14th suppl. London: Roy. Hort. Soc.   Laurus Voloshin, M. P. 1956. Review of laurel forms in Crimea. Trudy Gosud. Nititsk. Bot. Sada 29:85-94.   Liriodendron Andrews, S. 1992. Tree of the year: Liriodendron. Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1992:15-19.   Malus Fiala, J. L. 1994. Flowering crabapples. The genus Malus. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. Meyer, I. 1991. Monographie der nichtobstlichen Malus-Arten und Sorten. Thesis. Hannover: Univ. Hannover.   Myrtus Sennen and Teodoro. 1929. Les formes du Myrtus communis L. sur le territoire de Tarragone (Espagne). Bull. Bull. Soc. Dendrol. France 69:5-19.   Narcissus Note: Kington (1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1991, 1992) should be listed under Royal Horticultural Society to be consistent. Jefferson-Brown, M. 1991. Narcissus. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd.   Paeonia Harding, Mrs. E. 1917. The book of the peony. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. Klehm, R. G. 1995. The peony: Alice Harding's peonies in the little garden & the book of the peony. Portland, Oregon: Sagapress/Timber Press. Rogers, A. 1995. Peonies. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.   Pelargonium Spalding, G. c.1975. Complete copy of the Spalding Pelargonium check list. Ed. F. Hartsook: Int. Geranium. Soc.   Philadelphus Hoffman, M. H. A. 1996. Cultivar classification of Philadelphus L. (Hydrangeaceae). Acta Bot. Neerl. 45:199-209.   Phlox Fuchs, H. 1994. Phlox. Stauden - und Polsterphloxe. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer.   Populus Houtzagers, G. 1938. Eerste beschrijvende rassenlijst voor populieren. Nederlandse Algemene Keuringsdienst. Houtzagers, G. 1947. Tweede beschrijvende rassenlijst voor populieren, wilgen en lepen. Wageningen: Inst. Veredeling Tuinbouwgewassen.   Prunus Jacobson, A. L. 1990. Purpleleaf plum trees. Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1989:107-112.   Rhododendron Royal Horticultural Society. 1994. The international rhododendron register (1958). 34th suppl. Roy. Hort. Soc. Royal Horticultural Society. 1995. The international rhododendron register (1958). 35th suppl. Roy. Hort. Soc.   Rosa Dobson, B. R., and P. Schneider. 1993. Combined rose list 1993. Rocky River, Ohio: Peter Schneider. Dobson, B. R., and P. Schneider. 1994. Combined rose list 1994. Mantua, Ohio: Peter Schneider. Dobson, B. R., and P. Schneider. 1995. Combined rose list 1995. Mantua, Ohio: Peter Schneider. Dobson, B. R., and P. Schneider. 1996. Combined rose list 1996. Mantua, Ohio: Peter Schneider. Ellerbroek, C., and J. de Vink. 1931. Rozennaamlijst. Boskoop: Boom- en Plantenbeurs. Verrier, S. 1991. Rosa rugosa. Deer Park, Wisconsin: Capability's Books. Verrier, S. 1995. Rosa gallica. Deer Park, Wisconsin: Capability's Books.   Salix Chmelar, J. 1983. Weeping willows. Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1983:107-110. Houtzagers, G., ed. 1947. Tweede beschrijvende rassenlijst voor populieren, wilgen en lepen. Wageningen: Inst. Veredeling Tuinbouwgewassen.   Sedum Stephenson, R. 1994. Sedum: cultivated stonecrops. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.   Syringa Vrugtman, F. 1996. Lilac registrations 1995. HortScience 31:327-328.   Trees, shrubs, and woody vines (broad-leaved) Anonymous. 1958. Rassenlijst voor loofhoutgewassen. Wageningen: Stichting Verbetering Houtopstanden. Anonymous. 1967. Keur van opstanden en beplantingen voor zaadwinning in Nederland. List van herkomsten van naald- en loofhoutgewassen. 1963-1967. Wageningen: Stichting Bosbouwproefstation "De Dorschkamp." Anonymous. 1977. Rassenlijst van naald- en loofbomen voor bos- en landschapsbouw in Nederland (rassenlijst voor bosbouwgewassen bevattende herkomsten en rassen van naald- un loofbomen). 1970-1977. Wageningen: Stichting Bosbouwproefstation "De Dorschkamp." Anonymous. 1988. Aanvulling op de vierde rassenlijst van bousbouwgewassen. Complement to the fourth list of clones and provenances of forest trees. Wagengen: "De Dorschkamp." Anonymous. 1990. Rassenlijst van bomen. Fifth list of approved clones and provenances of trees. Maastricht: Leiter-Nypels B.V. Brander, E. 1990. Beskrivelse af selekterede kloner af traeer og buske til anlaeg, hegn, haekke og haver. Description of selected clones of trees and shrubs for parks, hedges and gardens. Landbrugsministeriet Statens Planteavlsforsøg. Clemants, S. E. 1995. International registration of cultivar names for unassigned woody genera 1994. HortScience 30:445. Clemants, S. E. 1996. International registration of cultivar names for unassigned woody genera 1995. HortScience 31:326. Darthuizer Boomwekerijen B.V. 1994. Darthuizer Vademedum. 4th rev. ed. Leersum, Netherlands: Darthuizer Boomwekerijen B.V. Spongberg, S. A. 1995. Cultivar registration at the Arnold Arboretum 1994. HortScience 30:446. Spongberg, S. A. 1996. Cultivar registration at the Arnold Arboretum 1995. HortScience 31:329.   Tsuga - See Conifers   Tulipa van Raamsdonk, L. W. D., and T. de Vries. 1996. Cultivar classification in Tulipa L. (Liliaceae). Acta Bot. Neerl. 45:183-198.   Ulmus Houtzagers, G., ed. 1947. Tweede beschrijvende rassenlijst voor populieren, wilgen en lepen. Wageningen: Inst. Veredeling Tuinbouwgewassen. Santamour, F. S., and S. E. Bentz. 1995. Updated checklist of elm (Ulmus) cultivars for use in North America. J. Arboric. 21:122-131.   Wisteria Walder, P. 1995. Wisterias: a comprehensive guide. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.   Zelkova Andrews, S. 1994. Tree of the year: Zelkova. Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearb. 1993:11-31. PLEASE! Notice of any corrections, updates and additions to the listing would be greatly appreciated and should be sent to one of the authors listed below. Arthur O Tucker, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Delaware State University, Dover, Delaware 19901-2277, United States of America Scott G Kunst, 536 Third Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103, United States of America Freek Vrugtman, Royal Botanical Gardens, Box 399, Hamilton, Ontario L8H 3H8, Canada Laurence C Hatch, P. O. Box 12011, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605, United States of America

HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 3 - 16 May 1997

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

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