HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - |
Announcing:
|
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Draft BioCode
As many will know, a Draft BioCode was prepared by an International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB) established under the auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) and the International Union of Microbiological Societies (IAMS). The members of the IBC were designated by the governing bodies of the five existing Codes of biological nomenclature (for bacteriology, botany, cultivated plants, viruses and zoology). The "Third Draft" was published in 1996 by IUBS (Paris. 42pp) and was reprinted in Taxon (45: 349-372), the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (53: 148-166), and posted on the ROM Web page (see below). It was even translated into Russian (authorised translation into Russian by T.V. Egorova & M.V. Agababian. 1997. V.L. Komarov Botanical Institute, St. Petersburg. 52 pp.) In the light of comments from the scientific community, the ICB revised the Draft BioCode and this was completed for submission to the 26th General Assembly of IUBS in Taipei, in November 1997. This was posted on the Web in December 1997 (see below) along with other relevant background information. It has also been published in hardcopy in the February 1998 issue of Taxon (47: 127-150). A summary of the changes and of some of its history appear in a paper by D.L. Hawksworth & J. McNeill in the same issue of Taxon (47: 123-126); this information is also available on the Web as indicated below. Please note that the URLs specified below have been recently changed, there being a major alteration to the Web page design at the Royal Ontario Museum. There are seven separate files on the Web that are relevant to the Draft BioCode (1997), and, although these are all hot-linked, the details of each are as follows: Introduction to the Draft BioCode 1997: this describes the changes from the "Third Draft":
[Note: This page has moved to http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/biocode/biointro1997.html] General Introduction to the Draft BioCode: the original introduction to the "Third Draft" still necessary for general background and justification:
[Note: This page has moved to http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/biocode/intro.html] Draft BioCode 1997: the prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms: the revised BioCode:
[Note: This page has moved to http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/biocode/biocode1997.html] Table of Equivalence of Nomenclatural Terms Used in the Draft BioCode: the Table in the Draft BioCode (1997) summarising the common terminology now recommended for adoption by existing Codes:
[Note: This page has moved to http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/biocode/biotable1997.html] Subject Index to the Draft BioCode 1997: new to the 1997 draft is this index:
[Note: This page has moved to http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/biocode/bioindex1997.html] The International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB): a brief account of the origin of the ICB and its current composition:
[Note: This page has moved to http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/biocode/bioicb1997.html] Draft BioCode: the prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms: the previous "Third Draft", retained because of established electronic links, and for those who wish to make comparisons:
[Note: This page has moved to http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/biocode/biocode.html] [All seven pages referenced above also have Portable Document Format (PDF) equivalents for which links are listed on the Draft BioCode home page at http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/biocode/] |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Directory of International Registration AuthoritiesPrevious editions of this newsletter have posted changes to the directory (Appendix II of the Code) but as from the near future, the latest information will be made available on the Web site for the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), viz:
[Note: The ISHS home page has moved to http://www.ishs.org/] |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
New Daffodil RegisterThe Royal Horticultural Society has just published the 1998 Daffodil Register which supersedes the previous checklist and supplements. The volume is 1,166 pages, and contains a record for all registrations up to June 1997. Entries for each cultivar includes the classification and colour code, details of the originator and registrant, date of the name, parentage, description, synonyms and awards. The Register provides a working classification for the species. Also included is an illustrated cultivar classification scheme, a pictorial glossary of descriptive terms and an A-Z of daffodil raisers. Around 26,000 cultivar and species names are accounted for including synonyms. RHS publications are available from: RHS Enterprises Limited, RHS Garden, Wisley, Woking, Surrey GU23 6QB United Kingdom. Fax: (+44) 1483 211003. |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Nomenclatural Filters
Derek Clayton (RBG, Kew) has advised that computer programs setting out the conditions of acceptance in both botanical and cultivated plant Codes are in use at Kew. They are called ICBN and CULTCODE. Copies of the .EXE files may be obtained free of charge on e-mail application to <grasses |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Third International Symposium on
|
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Yes, we need the term "culton"!
In Hortax News 1(3): 6-9. 1997, Crinan Alexander presents his doubts as to the usefulness of the term "culton" as proposed by Brandenburg and myself. I will try to explain here why Alexander's comments are mainly about peripheral matters related to the culton and how they fail to grasp the essential effects that acceptance of the concept will have on the stabilisation of cultivated plant nomenclature and classification. First of all, there is no complication within the nomenclatural system by the mere introduction of a new term. The everyday user of names of cultivated plants will not be bothered by the culton at all. I doubt that most even know the meaning of taxon. The users of cultivated plant names need simplification of names and stabilisation of names and classifications. Both phenomena are improved by the spin-off of "cultonomic" thinking. The culton itself is the final stage of the line of reasoning we used to simplify and stabilise cultivated plant nomenclature. It is the concept that anchors the philosophy which leads to an increased independence of cultivated plant classification from "botanical" classification and consequentially from nomenclature as ruled by the Botanical Code (ICBN). Hetterscheid et al. (1996) show that this is not a new initiative but this time the attempt has been given a "face" by formally introducing the culton and clearly stating the philosophical considerations leading to it. Decreasing the influence of the Botanical Code and "taxonomic (= hierarchical) thinking" in cultivated plant classification are the main goals Brandenburg and I set out to achieve - not the mere introduction of a new term. "Industrial products" is another phrase of ours that Alexander criticises. We used this term as a metaphor to stress more strongly that creating cultivars is a form of human industrial behaviour, aiming at improving our surroundings - the very purpose of industry itself. In this respect there is no essential difference between designing and producing a car and selecting and producing cultivars. For some the comparison may seem to devaluate the "romantic" aspect of plant breeding but that is beside the point we were trying to make. That point is to show the intentional aspect of the creation of cultivars as opposed to the naturally occurring (non-intentional) processes leading to the biological entities we recognise in nature. The reconstitution argument we used to underscore an essential difference between cultivars and species is criticised by Alexander but he again fails to grasp the essence: whereas a cultivar can be reconstituted intentionally at any pre-determined moment, the reconstitution of a hybrid "species" in the wild is a random process and depends entirely on the accidental gene-transfer of two parental plants who have to be in a close enough proximity for such a transfer to occur. An additional argument shows the difference Brandenburg and I stressed: if the reconstituted cultivar fits exactly the description of an existing named cultivar, it becomes that cultivar, whatever its origin. The resultant hybrid plants from an accidental cross between representatives of two different species are, according to the rules of the ICBN Hybrid Appendix, given the name (and only the name!) that already exists for such a cross. This purely nomenclatural rule can hardly be used to argue that resultant plant(s) of the cross equate to a reconstituted species! The fact that natural hybrids of a given cross occurring at different times or in different places get the same name, does not mean that they represent the same natural taxon! By contrast, a reconstituted cultivar fitting the circumscription of an earlier named cultivar, is that cultivar! So in essence a cultivar can be reconstituted, whereas a species cannot. I would also suggest that the few hybrid "species" that have ever been found to be "reconstituted" in nature by comparison to the myriad of singularly occurring species renders Alexander's argument as having no essential bearing at all on our initial argument. Alexander refers to ICBN Art. 4 to illustrate that categories other than those mentioned in the ICBN may be added or intercalated. He uses this argument to flaw our contention that ICBN only supports nomenclature in hierarchical systems or categories. May I point out to him the use of the terms "rank" and "intercalated" in that same Art 4. which exactly proves the point Brandenburg and I made. Hierarchy is the core of the ICBN nomenclature system and still forms the basis of the mainstream of biological classification. A recent quotation (Moritz & Hillis, 1990: 1) illustrates the issue: "The formalisation of a hierarchical system of nomenclature by Linnaeus (1758) established a framework for describing and categorising biological diversity. This hierarchical system was initially independent of evolutionary theory, but later workers (e.g., Darwin, 1895; Haeckel, 1866 reviewed by Mayr, 1983) developed the notion that classification should be based on phylogenetic relationships." Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that cultivated plants are nowadays included in this alley of classification and systematics. No evolutionary biologist will incorporate cultivars in any theory of evolution and neither will evolutionary taxonomists incorporate them in their classifications. Cultivars essentially do not fit such taxonomic systems and taxonomists of cultivated plants (yes - "cultonomists"!) owe it to all users and themselves to redefine the parameters of cultivated plant systematics in comparison to what their colleagues do in attempting to classify evolutionary biodiversity. Such parameters are set by the culton concept and its ramifications. The argument about the uncertainty of the ranking of forma and varietas proves nothing but the ambiguity of whether the first should be seen as a subdivision of the last or the reverse. It still is an argument about ranking in a hierarchy! Because this discussion has never been solved satisfactorily, the ICBN allows for ambiguity here but that can hardly be explained as flexibility in the sense that is necessary to accommodate cultivars. The latter would have to be an essential part of the system, whereas the forma/varietas "solution" is merely an inconvenience. It is no wonder that many voices are heard in favour of abandoning the forma and/or varietas altogether. This attitude towards ambiguous categories within the ICBN at once precludes the stance most taxonomists would take against introducing the cultivar as an ICBN category: "It doesn't fit, so let's keep it out!" They would indeed be right! A much heard critique which is brought forward by Alexander concerns the intention of the ICBN and ICNCP not to make any statements about classification and taxonomy. It still surprises me that this argument is heard. ICBN Preamble 1 states that the purpose, amongst others, of giving a name to a taxonomic group is "..to indicate its taxonomic rank". This statement led Minelli (1991) to state "The independence of taxonomy and nomenclature is a desirable goal, but it is probably unattainable in its entirety." The ICBN only "supports" the Linnaean system of classification but it is absolutely not adapted to every possible classification method. Clearly, if I were to come up with a strictly non-hierarchical classification system, I could never use ICBN to create a coherent nomenclatural system for it. Recently (De Queiroz, 1996; De Queiroz & Gauthier, 1990, 1992, 1994; Minelli, 1995) the ICBN has also been criticised for not being flexible enough ("neutral" enough) to support a stable nomenclature for purely monophyletic classifications. The ICBN is not a set of rules independent of classification philosophies, despite the argument often heard to the contrary. The last point of critique by Alexander, concerning the fact that the ICBN does not recognise the cultivar and the cultivar-group is much more significant than he wants us to believe. If the cultivar was an ICBN category (and hence a "taxon"), then the establishment of a cultivar would lead to the immediate creation of an "autonymic cultivar" or put another way, the establishment of a cultivar would lead to discussions about such a thing as a "type cultivar" with an autonym, derived from the name of the taxon of immediate higher rank under which the cultivar is classified. How would that work? Would we suddenly accept the creation of Latin cultivar epithets for the "type cultivar" of a taxon? For example, if I were to accept the cultivar as an ICBN category and I created the cultivar 'Big Boy' in Bellis perennis, then I would according to the ICBN, automatically create B. perennis 'Perennis' and the name of this "taxon" would be fixed by the type of B. perennis. Similar problems would emerge with the creation of cultivar-groups. This kind of nonsense we can do well without in cultivated plant classification and nomenclature. I am equally sure that botanists would be very reluctant to start changing the ICBN so as to accommodate cultivars to avoid the problems described above. No wonder the proposed BioCode (Greuter et al. 1996) also excludes systematic groups of cultivated plants from its realm of authority. Let us recognise these signs and continue to develop cultivated plant systematics as an independent discipline. It was to this end that Brandenburg and I ventured to start looking for a more coherent philosophy of classification of cultivated plants starting at the base (the cultivar) and working our way "upwards", to finally conclude that the logical consequence of the very essential nature of the cultivar is a classification system that is different from that in use for taxa. This classification system is essentially not a hierarchical one. Therefore the culmination of our search was the awareness that a basic systematic concept for categories for cultivated plant classification was lacking. This is what we developed as the culton.
Unfortunately Alexander starts his critique the other way around and first focuses on the mere introduction of the culton as a term and thus debilitates it as a logical consequence of a philosophy. The failure of past attempts to divorce classification of culta from taxa and thus disentangle hierarchy from classifications of cultivated plants has been amply illustrated in Hetterscheid et al. (1996). I feel that the culton concept makes a fundamental contribution to this problem and does a general service to our profession and the users of the results of our investigations. It would therefore merit consideration to officially adopt it within the ICNCP and to use it instead of the awkward term "systematic groups of cultivated plants". Literature cited:
De Queiroz, K. & Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 449-480. De Queiroz, K. & Gauthier, J. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. & Evol. 9: 27-31.
De Queiroz, K. 1996. A phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature as an alternative to the Linnaean systems in current use. In: Reveal, J. L. (ed.), Proceedings of a mini-symposium on biological nomenclature in the 21st century. University of Maryland: http://www.life.umd.edu/bees/96sym.html. Posted 2 December 1996. Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D.L., McNeill, J., Mayo, M.A., Minelli, A., Sneath, P.H.A., Tindall, B.J., Trehane, P., Tubbs, P. 1996. Draft BioCode: the prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. Taxon 45(2): 349-372. Hetterscheid, W.L.A., van den Berg, R.G., & Brandenburg, W.A., 1996. An annotated history of the principles of cultivated plant classification. Acta Bot. Neerl. 45(2): 123-134. Minelli, A. 1991. Names for the system and names for the classification. In: D.L. Hawksworth, ed. Improving the stability of names. Regnum Vegetabile 123. Koeltz. Minelli, A. 1995. The changing paradigms of biological systematics: new challenges to the principles and practice of biological nomenclature. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 52(4): 303-309. Moritz, C & Hillis, D.M. 1990. Molecular systematics: context and controversies: In: Hillis, D.M. & C. Moritz (eds.), Molecular Systematics. Sinauer Assoc. Inc. 588 pgs. 1-10. |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
A comment on the culton concept
Having read and re-read both Crinan Alexander's comments on the "culton" in Hortax News vol. 1, no. 3 and the parts of Wilbert Hetterscheid's writings on the subject I have been able to obtain, I can envisage plenty of situations where separating cultivated plant taxonomy from other taxonomy might seem natural or sensible. A cut flower producer might be more interested in the "functional" aspects of the cultivars he grew -- response to fertiliser, length of life as a cut flower, etc. -- than the structural characteristics of the flower that a taxonomist working on the genus in question might use. However, I feel that inventing a host of new terms and thus ring-fencing off the taxonomy of wild plants from that of cultivated plants, based on the idea that the production of cultivars is a process entirely different from that of natural selection is wrong both in terms of its effect and the principle behind it. The principal effect of carrying out such a policy of rigid segregation will surely be increased confusion, and the complex nature of the rules of plant nomenclature will possibly cause tremendous further problems of delimitation. Allen Coombes (1993), discussed the issue of Hosta sieboldii, named from variegated plant material when most wild populations are in fact just green, and suggested describing the material from which the species was described as a new cultivar of the species. Similarly, I would also suspect that Ginkgo biloba was first described from cultivated material: would these plants be culta or taxa under such divorced codes of nomenclature as are apparently being proposed? Roy Lancaster's description of his collections, and W T Stearn's description, of Epimedium stellulatum 'Wudang Star' (Lancaster 1995) suggest that the material on which the species name is based is identical to the material on which the cultivar name is based. This is not so much a case of taxa and culta being co-extensive, as being identical by definition. The principle underlying the separation of the taxonomy of wild plants from that of cultivated plants, i.e., that the process of evolution is intrinsically different from that of artificial selection, certainly appears to carry some weight when applied to the sort of mass-produced "industrial products" that cultivars of vegetables, annuals, bulbs and cut flowers represent. These plants have been clearly developed for particular uses and to us appear very different from their wild cousins, as indeed they are in terms of the selection processes that they have undergone. In Europe, however, such distinctions may look more clear-cut than they might do elsewhere. I suspect that for many taxa of plants preserved by generations of tropical polyculturalist farmers, the idea of a distinction between cultivated plant "land-races" and their wild relatives in the surrounding forest would suffer from an absence of reproductive isolation between the two sorts of plant. The processes and relative roles of artificial and natural selection in the history of such plants would probably be far less simple and black-and-white than the proponents of the culton concept might like to believe. Dennett (1995) has pointed out that since artificial environments and selection processes are themselves products, direct or indirect, of natural selection, it might be more difficult than we suppose for "Martian" (i.e., non-human) biologists to differentiate between products of artificial selection, natural selection and interplays between the two. He uses the example of a Pekinese dog, a barn-swallow and a cheetah, and points out that though we know only one is what (if the terminology spreads) a zoologist might call a culton, the other two could be misconstrued: the barn-swallow's fondness for eaves of roofs and the greyhound-like running abilities of the cheetah might be taken as adaptations for use by man. He points out that the only way that such animals might be distinguished is by a thorough knowledge of their environmental history — not even their phylogeny could necessarily elucidate their origin as culta or taxa. One might be forgiven for concluding, given that taxonomy has historically been based on phenetic rather than phyletic studies, that the conceptual grounds for separation of the taxonomy of artificially selected taxa from that of wild taxa are distinctly shaky.
The Editor has already highlighted the principle failing of the culton concept in his comments about "grey areas" (Trehane, 1997). L. H. Bailey was right to point out the cultivated origins of species such as Manihot esculenta and Solanum tuberosum, and right also to realise the tremendous difficulties of altering nomenclatural systems. At a time when proposals are being made to unify all nomenclatural codes into a single code of bionomenclature, it seems perverse in the extreme to split off cultivated plant systematics for such abstract conceptual reasons. Literature cited:
Coombes, A. 1993. Solutions to some species/cultivar problems. Hortax News 1(1): 6-10. Dennett, D. 1995. Page 318 in Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Penguin, London. Hetterscheid, W. L. A. 1995. Culton versus taxon: conceptual ideas in cultivated plant systematics. Taxon 44: 161-173. Lancaster, R. 1995. Epimedium stellulatum 'Wudang Star'. The Garden 120(3): 134-135. Trehane, P. 1997. The Code: contentious issues to be resolved. Hortax News 1(3): 10-14. |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Culton: a useful term, questionably argued
In Hortax News (vol. 1, no. 3) Crinan Alexander (1997) argues against the adoption of the term "culton", pleading that we "not be so carried away by philosophical concepts that we saddle ourselves with yet more unnecessary and abstruse technical terms". With the obvious exception of his comments on the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) (Trehane et al. 1995) and on the Draft BioCode (Greuter et al. 1996, 1998; Hawksworth and McNeill 1998; International Committee on Bionomenclature 1996), I find myself in almost complete agreement with the argument that he presents in reaching this conclusion. But, despite my agreement with the argument, I believe the conclusion is erroneous. The problem, in so far as there is one, goes back to the paper by Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995) discussing conceptual issues in cultivated plant systematics, formally introducing the relatively new term "culton" and contrasting it with the much longer established "taxon" (Lam 1957). Having had the privilege of reviewing Hetterscheid and Brandenburg's paper prior to its publication, I believe that these authors' desire to emphasise the differences between the nomenclature governed by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) (Greuter et al. 1994) and that governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) (Trehane et al. 1995) and their consequent enthusiasm for the utility of the term "culton", have led them, even in the published version, to overstate the conceptual differences between botanical systematics and cultivated plant systematics, and consequently between taxa and culta. Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995) emphasise the evolutionary connotations of taxa and "the widely held view that taxa ... must be monophyletic". But, in fact, the international system of botanical nomenclature embodied in the ICBN does not assume any particular taxon concept, whether based on evolutionary process or not, far less one related to (strict) monophyly, paraphyly or even polyphyly. It may be that the widespread use of cladistic methodologies, which are clearly the most useful in attempts to reconstruct evolutionary history, has persuaded many people that classifications should be strictly monophyletic, but this is in no way an intrinsic function of the taxonomic system upon which the ICBN is based. Indeed some biologists question whether the existing system can accommodate phylogenetically defined groups (cf. De Queiroz and Gauthier 1992, 1994; De Queiroz 1996, 1998; Schander 1998). All that is presumed in the current botanical nomenclatural system - as indeed Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995: 162-163) note - is that the groups of organisms be arranged in a nested hierarchy and be members of one, and only one, group within any one rank. Overlapping taxa are, therefore, precluded, and a minimal hierarchy of 3 (to 7) levels is assumed - or even of just 2 levels for taxa assigned to form-genera (ICBN Art. 3.3). Although most taxonomists, even if they view classification in terms of information retrieval rather than necessarily a reflection of most probable phylogeny, expect taxonomic groups (taxa) to be populationally based and "natural" at least in the sense of being polythetic, this is not something inherent in the rules of nomenclature nor in the definition of "taxon". Both could just as well apply to groups that were defined monothetically (e.g., Linnaeus's Classes and Orders). Indeed, the recognised taxonomic rank, forma, is currently most often so applied - i.e., for distinctive variants within populations, recognised primarily on a single character (e.g., forma alba in corolliferous plants, or forma aristata in grasses). Although I am not very sympathetic to any use of the rank forma, it is, in fact, often used in a sense not very different from that of the ICNCP category, cultivar, in that it often denotes a set of plants in the wild whose features intrigue human beings rather than reflect any natural unit, whether evolutionary or phenetically defined. Despite this, under the ICBN, a forma, so defined, is a perfectly appropriate taxon. Like Alexander (1997), I believe that Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995) make an altogether artificial distinction between the role of man in evolution and that of other selection processes. Certainly, it is not good evolutionary thinking to suppose that man is not inescapably a part of the ecosystem. The distinction they make between cultivars as "industrial products being manufactured instead of naturally evolving" as taxa are considered to do, is the extreme of this position. In fact the evolution of a wild orchid and the breeding of Rosa 'Peace' - or even the genetic engineering of transgenic Rt potato cultivars resistant to Colorado beetle (Perlak et al. 1993; Belknap et al. 1994) - merely represent extremes of a continuum. Why then do I disagree with Alexander and support the adoption and use of the term culton? Quite simply because I find it a very useful term to cover those groupings that the ICNCP uniquely covers, as opposed to those groupings that are governed by the ICBN. I believe that the key issue as to whether a group of plants should be recognised under the ICBN or under the ICNCP, i.e., whether treated as a taxon or a culton, is not whether human influence has been involved in its evolution, but rather the purpose for which recognition is being sought. If it is part of the overall information sustem that represents botanical taxonomy, then taxon recognition is relevant - for example, Triticum aestivum or Fragaria ×annanassa - but if it is to communicate information on the discrete variants within a single cultigen that are vitally important in horticulture, agriculture and forestry practice, then culton status is the appropriate one. I think that most members of the International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants who met in Seattle in 1994 to prepare the present edition of the ICNCP broadly shared this understanding of the nature of cultivars and cultivar-groups, the two taxonomic groups of cultivated plants uniquely covered by the ICNCP, as opposed to the taxonomic groups (families, genera, species, subspecies etc.) of the ICBN. Nevertheless, it proved very difficult to come up with clear statements of the relative mandates of the two Codes. For example, "botanical names in Latin form" (cf. Trehane et al. 1995: Prin. 2) is a bit of a mouthful, whereas "names of taxa" (if this was clearly understood as being opposed to "names of culta") would be much simpler. Moreover, this emphasis on purpose can deal logically and clearly with the specific examples raised by Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995) and by Alexander (1997). The latter asks "can Erica tetralix 'Alba' be a culton in gardens, when the identical Erica tetralix forma alba is a taxon in the wild?" Setting aside the issue of the wisdom and practicability of application of ICNCP Art. 16.2 (and its associated Ex. 2), the answer is that, of course, it can - if there is need for both forms of name. E. tetralix f. alba will be an accepted taxon, only if those developing the general scientific information system that the ICBN regulates consider that it has useful information content, which I, personally, doubt - if it is a single-character variant, then "white-flowered E. tetralix" is marginally more informative, for at least we are certain that it is the flowers that are white! On the other hand, if plants with white flowers, not evidently distinguishable from plants in the wild which our botanical information system treats as the species E. tetralix, are being distributed in cultivation as a white-flowered subset of that species, then a culton name, such as E. tetralix 'Alba', seems desirable. The history of the taxonomy of groups of horticultural importance provides many examples of this issue of the intersection of the two Codes. One of the best known is perhaps the outcry that came from many rhododendron growers when Cullen and Chamberlain (Cullen 1980; Chamberlain 1982) prepared a revised classification of the large Rhododendron subgenera Rhododendron and Hymenanthes, in which a very large number of horticulturally distinctive species were synonymised under other species on the basis of Cullen and Chamberlain's conclusions on the continuity of variation in the wild. In their opinion (though not, of course, in that of Davidian 1982-1992), such species names were misleading within the general plant information system governed by the ICBN - in fact, these species names did not reflect good taxa. However, history has shown that many of them had, in fact, been used, however inappropriately, to denominate distinguishable culta, and so cultivar or cultivar-group names should now be applied to them (ICNCP Art. 4 Note 1 and Ex. 5). There is one stance that Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995) take that Alexander does not mention, but which I find disturbing. This is the idea that, simply because plants are cultivated, they fall entirely outside the provisions of the ICBN, and become the sole domain of the ICNCP. This is at variance with their quotation from Simpson presented with approval (p. 164), who, speaking of classifications such as that of domestic animals, says "they require the prior classification of organisms on some other system", which is also the thrust of Principle 2 of the ICNCP. Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995) are particularly concerned at the assignment of taxonomic status under the ICBN to groups of entirely cultivated plants, e.g., as species or subspecies. Trehane (1997) seems to fall into the same thought mode when he refers to "the 'culton' that has escaped" as a "pseudotaxon". This seems to be a misunderstanding of the all-inclusive role of botanical nomenclature. The ICBN is seen by most botanists as providing the rules governing the general information system for all plants, wild and cultivated, as illustrated by my reference (above) to the scientific names for common wheat and cultivated strawberry, neither of which exist outside of cultivation. The issue is whether the variation involved is such as to merit inclusion in the general botanical information system. Most floras have no difficulty in accommodating the escaped and widely naturalised nothospecies (ICBN Art. H.3; H.5) Crocosmia ×crocosmiiflora (montbretia) as such, even although it is known to have arisen as an artificial hybrid between C. aurea and C. pottsii (Clapham et al. 1987 under Tritonia). A culton that escapes simply becomes a taxon, and may well also remain an actively grown culton, or, as apparently in this case, be the parent of other culta (Cullen 1986). We are not shackled by the concept of how it evolved; the decision rests on how it behaves. Contrary to Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995), there is no a priori reason why there should not be, say, a subspecies covering all the cultivated members of a group, if, indeed, the scientific evidence concludes that these are a coherent group of organisms that justifies such taxonomic recognition. Dipsacus fullonus subsp. fullonus and the once cultivated subsp. sativus, which can also become naturalised (Clapham et al. 1962), may be a good example - although fuller's teasel has more recently been accepted at species rank (as D. sativus) and more closely related to D. ferox (Hansen 1976). In other situations, however, such as that of the cauliflower, mentioned by Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995), general taxonomy to-day seems unlikely ever to recognise variation much below that of Brassica oleracea, and so the "white-headed cabbage group", however misleading its English phraseology, becomes desirable as a cultivar-group. As Trehane (1997) notes, and as discussed in Hortax News 1(2) (1996), there is need of some clarification in the cultivar-group concept - and, perhaps also in that of the denomination class - but in general the purpose of culton recognition as opposed to that of taxon recognition clarifies the issue of when the ICBN should apply and when the ICNCP. The issue of how much of the general information system to maintain in the classification of cultivated plants is really a matter of convenience for the users of the ICNCP, i.e., it is simplest to go to the lowest level that encompasses the cultigen involved, be it Rosa, Solanum tuberosum or Silene vulgaris subsp. maritima. This level is, of course, influenced by current general taxonomic concepts in the groups involved. So long as all the Chinese species of Rhododendron described by Bailey Balfour and Wright Smith were recognised in the general information system of botanical taxonomy, there was no need of culton names for the distinctive groups of plants in cultivation, representing the limited samples of variation in the wild which are all that some of these original species are now thought to represent. Indeed, were Erica tetralix forma alba a widely recognised taxon (e.g., adopted in Flora Europaea), there would be no need for E. tetralix 'Alba', as defined in the ICNCP Art. 16 Ex. 2. It is when variation exists whose recognition is vital for horticulture, agriculture and forestry, but which is not deemed significant in the general system of botanical information, that culton recognition becomes essential.
In summary, I believe the term "culton" to be an extremely useful one by which to refer to the groups which are recognised under the ICNCP for quite different purposes from those determining the taxa forming part of the general botanical information system and governed by the ICBN. I have also no difficulty with the definition of culton given by Hetterscheid and Brandenburg (1995) ("a systematic group of cultivated plants based on one or more user-driven-criteria"). Alexander's (1997) reaction makes clear that Hetterscheid and Brandenburg have gone so far beyond this purpose-based definition, invoking concepts for culta that are questionable at best, and in some case plainly erroneous, as to make it that much more difficult to gain acceptance for this useful term. I propose that we dismiss the questionable arguments of Hetterscheid and Brandenburg and concentrate on the purpose-oriented definition of culton and determine its utility accordingly.
Literature cited:
Belknap, W.R., Corsini, D., Pavek, J.J., Snyder, G.W., Rockhold, D.R. & Vayda, M.E. 1994. Field performance of transgenic Russet Burbank and Lemhi Russet potatoes. American Potato Journal 71: 285-296. Clapham, R., Tutin, T.G. & Warburg, E.F. 1962. Flora of the British Isles. ed. 2. Cambridge University Press. xlvii + 1269 pp. Clapham, R., Tutin, T.G. & Moore, D.M. 1987. Flora of the British Isles. ed. 3. Cambridge University Press. xxix + 688 pp. Chamberlain, D.F. 1982. Revision of Rhododendron 2. Subgenus Hymenanthes. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard., Edinb. 39: 209-486. Cullen, J. 1980. Revision of Rhododendron 1. Subgenus Rhododendron sections Rhododendron and Pogonanthum. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard., Edinb. 39: 1-208. Cullen, J. 1986. Crocosmia. pg. 386, in Walters, S.M., Brady, A., Brickell, C.D., Cullen, J., Green, P.S., Lewis, J., Matthews, V.A., Webb, D.A., Yeo, P.F. & Alexander, J.C.M., The European Garden Flora. vol 1. Cambridge University Press. Davidian, H.H. 1982-1992. The Rhododendron species. Vol. I: Lepidotes. (1982); Vol. II: Elepidotes (arboreum-lactaeum). (1989); Vol. III: Elepidotes continued (neriflorum-thomsonii, Azaleastrum and Camtschaticum) (1992). Timber Press, Oregon. 431, 392 & 429 pp.
De Queiroz, K., 1996. A phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature as an alternative to the Linnaean systems in current use. In: Reveal, J. L. (ed.), Proceedings of a mini-symposium on biological nomenclature in the 21st century. University of Maryland: http://www.life.umd.edu/bees/96sym.html. Posted 2 December 1996. De Queiroz, K. 1998. Misunderstandings about the phylogenetic approach to biological nomenclature: a reply to Lidén and Oxelman. Zool. Scr. 26: 67-70. De Queiroz, K. & Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 449-480. De Queiroz, K. & Gauthier, J. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of nomenclature. Trends Ecol. & Evol. 9: 27-31.
Greuter, W., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Chaloner, W.G., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D.L., Jørgensen, P.M., Nicolson, D.H., Silva, P.C., Trehane, P. & McNeill, J., (eds.). 1994. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Tokyo Code). Adopted by the Fifteenth International Botanical Congress, Yokohama, August-September 1993. (Regnum veg. 131). Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany. xviii + 389 pp. (Also available electronically at
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/ Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D.L., McNeill, J., Mayo, M.A., Minelli, A., Sneath, P.H.A., Tindall, B.J., Trehane, P. & Tubbs, P., (the IUBS/IUMS International Committee for Bionomenclature) (eds.). 1996. Draft BioCode: the prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. Taxon 45: 349-372. (also Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53: 148-166). (Also available electronically at http://www.rom.on.ca/ebuff/biocode.html) Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D.L., McNeill, J., Mayo, M.A., Minelli, A., Sneath, P.H.A., Tindall, B.J., Trehane, P. & Tubbs, P. (the IUBS/IUMS International Committee for Bionomenclature) (eds.). 1998. Draft BioCode (1997): the prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. Taxon 47: 127-150. (Also available electronically at http://www.rom.on.ca/ebuff/biocode1997.html) Hansen, A. 1976. Dipsacus. pgs. 58-59, in Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Moore, D.M., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M. & Webb, D.A., Flora Europaea. vol 4. Cambridge University Press. Hawksworth, D.L. & McNeill, J. 1998. The International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB), the Draft BioCode (1997), and the IUBS resolution on bionomenclature. Taxon 47: 123-126. (See also: http://www.rom.on.ca/ebuff/bioicb1997.html and http://www.rom.on.ca/ebuff/biointro1997.html) Hetterscheid, W.L.A. & Brandenburg, W.A. 1995. Culton versus taxon: conceptual issues in cultivated plant systematics. Taxon 44: 161-175. International Committee on Bionomenclature (D.L. Hawksworth (Chair), W. Greuter, J. McNeill, M.A. Mayo, A. Minelli, P.H.A. Sneath, B.J. Tindall, P. Trehane and P. Tubbs) (eds.). 1996. Draft BioCode: the prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. International Union of Biological Sciences, Paris. 42 pp. (Also available electronically at http://www.rom.on.ca/ebuff/intro.html and http://www.rom.on.ca/ebuff/biocode.html) Lam, H. J. 1957. What is a taxon? Taxon 6: 213-215. Perlak, F.J., Stone, T.B., Muskopf, Y.M., Petersen, L.J., Parker, G.B., McPheson, S.A., Wyman, J., Love, S., Reed, G., Biever, D. & Fischhoff, D.A. 1993. Genetically improved potatoes: protection from damage by Colorado potato beetles. Plant Molecular Biology 22: 213-221. Schander, C. 1998. Types, emendations and names - a reply to Lidén et al. Taxon 47(3) (in press). Trehane, P., Brickell, C.D., Baum, B.R., Hetterscheid, W.L.A., Leslie, A.C., McNeill, J., Spongberg, S.A. & Vrugtman, F. (eds.). 1995. The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants - 1995. (ICNCP or Cultivated Plant Code), adopted by the International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants. Quarterjack Publishing, Wimborne, U.K. (Regnum veg. 133). xvi + 175 pp. Trehane, P. 1997. The Code - contentious issues to be resolved. Hortax News 1(3): 10-14. |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Registration of plant names - test and trial phase
Introduction
Subject to ratification by the XVI International Botanical Congress (St Louis, 1999) of a rule already included in the International code of botanical nomenclature (Art. 32.1-2 of the Tokyo Code), new names of plants and fungi whose use and formation is governed by that Code, will have to be registered in order to be validly published after the 1st January 2000. To demonstrate feasibility of a registration system, the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) undertakes a trial of registration, on a non-mandatory basis, for a two-years period starting 1 January 1998. The coordinating centre will be the Secretariat of IAPT, currently at the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Germany. Coordination with present indexing centres for major groups of plants is being sought, in view of their possible active involvement at the implementation stage. The International Mycological Institute in Egham, UK, has already accepted to act as associate registration centre for the whole of fungi, including fossil fungi. Registration procedureThe coordinating registration centre (IAPT Secretariat), and any associated centre operating under its auspices, will register and make available all names of new taxa, all new combinations or rank transfers that are brought to their attention in one of the following ways:
Registration by way of publication in accredited journals or serials
Accredited journals and serials will be entitled, and even encouraged, to mention that accreditation on their cover, title page or in their impressum. A permanently updated list of accredited journals and serials is being placed on the World Wide Web at: This list will be published annually in the journal Taxon.
Registration by way of submission to registration offices
Registration forms can be obtained free of charge (a) by sending a request to any registration office or centre, by letter, fax or e-mail, or (b), preferably, by printing and copying the form as available on the World Wide Web at:
Registration offices are presently being arranged for in as many different countries as possible. They will serve (a) as mailboxes and forwarding agencies for registration submissions and (b) as national repositories for printed matter in which new names published locally appear. A permanently updated address list of all functioning national registration offices is being placed on the World Wide Web at: This list will also be published annually in the journal Taxon.
Registration date For the duration of the trial phase, i.e., as long as registration is non-mandatory, the date of a name will, just as before, be the date of effective publication of the printed matter in which it is validated, irrespective of the date of registration. Nevertheless, the registration date will be recorded, for the following reasons:
It is therefore in the interest of every author to submit nomenclatural novelties for registration without any delay, and by the most rapid means available.
Access to registration data
[Editor's note |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Using colour charts
There are many instances where colour comparison is important such as in the selection of paint for the home, quality control in packaging, or chemical analysis of substances. In horticulture, the colour of a flower is often the simplest visual method of distinguishing one cultivar from another, but recognition of colours is very subjective. The colour of Primula vulgaris is pale yellow, but is it a greenish yellow or creamy yellow? It certainly is not the same shade as Hamamelis ×intermedia 'Pallida'. How would one describe the colour of Lavandula 'Twickel Purple' to distinguish it from 'Hidcote' to someone who did not know both cultivars; lavender blue, pale purplish blue, mauve, lilac, lavender? It is obvious therefore that some system is needed to try to standardise these colours. Colour can vary in three ways referred to as the dimensions or attributes of the colour:
Several different approaches have been made to this problem over the years but the first in which the Royal Horticultural Society was involved was in association with the British Colour Council in 1938. This, the "Horticultural Colour Chart" used a combination of traditional and more modern colour names each with three paler tints of the full hue. It was not dissimilar to one produced in France in 1905 by the French Chrysanthemum Society. As far as possible each colour was related to a well known plant for example Rose Bengal 25/2 was considered to equate to Rubus spectabilis and Doge Purple 732 to Primula 'Wanda'. The equivalent names were also given in six other European languages. In 1966, the RHS replaced the 1938 edition with an extended range of over 800 colours on cards each of four tints using numbers to refer to a specific colour and colour names such as Purplish Red for each card. It has become a recognised standard for international registration authorities and Plant Breeders' Rights offices as well as other organisations. Further editions in 1986 and 1995, the earlier in association with the Dutch Flower Council, have since been produced and each matched to the previous ones. It is important to state whether the older Horticultural Colour Chart or the RHS Colour Chart is used. There are a number of technical difficulties involved in the production of a colour chart to ensure that each copy is the same as all others and previous editions. For the latest edition of the RHS Colour Chart, all colours were carefully mixed and checked by experts in the field of paint: a number of different people in three different light conditions and a spectrophotometer were used so the match was as close as possible to previous editions. There should in theory be no need to quote the edition of the RHS Colour Chart in any references. Colour difference is likely to be due to lack of care for the chart. However, incorrect use of the chart can dramatically reduce its usefulness. Pigments are affected by light and if the colour fans are left exposed to light the colour will fade or alter in hue. The colours on a chart stored in cool conditions in the dark should not change. Colours alter according to the light in which they are viewed, whether a north natural light, full sunshine or any of the many types of artificial light so for direct comparison, all colours should be compared in natural north light not artificial light or direct sunlight. Both the eye and the specimen itself may be influenced by surrounding colours so care should be taken to isolate the specimen from competing background colours. In addition, human eyes themselves may become tired. Consideration should also be given to the plant itself. Colours differ according to season, under different climates and in different soils. Even if all these factors are constant, the colour of a flower may vary according to its age or health. Some flowers even change colour from hour to hour so that a single colour match made at any one time may be misleading. As far as practical, colour references should be made at several stages of development and include details of any markings or "blooms" as often seen on fruits which may mask the underlying colour. It has often been stated that plant colour could be matched more efficiently by using a spectrophotometer and this is undoubtedly true but as previously mentioned, flower colour is very variable, so is the exact colour any more useful than the guide given by the colour chart? Likewise a chart with 2,000 or even 5,000 colours could be thought to be more helpful but the time taken to match the colour would far outweigh its usefulness. The aim of the RHS Colour Chart is to provide a guide to the colour of plants, and despite some limitations, if used correctly, is an invaluable aid which remains unexpectedly accurate. |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Proposals for amendments to the CodeIn the Foreword to the 1995 Code, Chris Brickell, Chairman of the Commission wrote: "Any code which has undergone such a major change in design will have its short-comings and these will only be discovered when the Rules of the Code are put to the test. Changes and refinements will have to be made in the light of experience in all disciplines". A number of proposals to alter the Code have been received by the Rapporteur, ranging from the notification of orthographical and typographical errors to the airing of more drastic conceptual issues, and the sum of such comments is currently being compiled in documentation for the meeting of the Commission immediately following the Edinburgh Symposium. Below are outlined just two proposals (space is limited) to accompany those from Wisley and VKC detailed later in this publication. Any further proposals - indeed any comments - must reach the Rapporteur by 30th June at the latest to ensure consideration by the Commission.
E-mailed messages are particularly welcome and these should be sent to
<piers Gert Fortgens, President of Internationale Stauden-Union (ISU) has submitted the following (abstracted by the Rapporteur): Members of ISU (most of them being nurserymen) have made wide use of the notation hybrid/Hybride attached to one of the names of the parent plants. An example from Germany is Geranium Gracile-Hybride 'Sirak', being a hybrid between the species G. gracile and G. ibericum. The Code does not provide for this notation but allows the following solutions: Geranium 'Sirak' (G. gracile × G. ibericum), or Geranium (G. gracile × G. ibericum) 'Sirak', or, if the cultivar-group exists, Geranium (Gracile Group) 'Sirak'. Nurserymen from many countries prefer the use of a species name in their catalogues and on name-tags etc. as being the most concise means of conveying cultural information. ISU strongly advises its members to use the provisions of the 1995 Code in naming their plants, but fears that its provisions do not offer the practical solution wanted by this user-group. We therefore ask the Commission to consider enabling a provision (such as that above already in use) whereby the predominant parent may be linked to a cultivar of a hybrid. Ing. B. Miculka, from the Czech Republic and Regional Representative for the IRA on Lilium, suggests adoption of the terms "cultigroup" and "cultigrex". The former word is suggested as a less confusing alternative to "cultivar-group" when used to encompass similar cultivars. The term "cultigrex" would indicate an assemblage of plants which are less uniform than would be expected in a cultivar and would equate to the term "strain" as historically used in lily breeding. |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Proposals to amend the Code (1)
Art. 4.1 As the article reads now there is the implication that only named cultivars can be placed into cultivar-groups, whereas Notes 1 and 3 make it plain that this is not the case. It would be clearer if the principles set out in Notes 1 and 3 could be included in the article itself. Art. 14.4.
Art. 16.
Art. 17.9.
Art. 17.10. The acceptability of numerals (as figures) needs to be made explicit since it was evidently the Commission's intention to permit their use. However, would a cultivar epithet of 30 numerals be acceptable? Art. 17.11. This provision does not work. Too many descriptive adjectives also have a use as substantives and there is the ever present problem of knowing the meaning(s) of words in other languages. Also, how is one to interpret "common"? Would any real problem be caused by deleting this Article altogether? Perhaps we should concentrate more on exhorting authors to use greater imagination rather than always telling them what they cannot do! Art. 17.15. Does the use of "variety" and "form" really cause a problem in cultivar epithets? As in the case with latin epithets there are already many accepted names using these words. Could this provision be deleted? Art. 17.16. Here again is the Code not being over prescriptive? With the exception of grex, group, maintenance (plus, surely cultivar!), which describe the taxonomic units concerned could not all these words be permitted with little if any risk of confusion? Art. 17.18. It is no more confusing for a plant to be given a name which might be considered to exaggerate its merits than to name a plant after a person or place with which it has no connection or to imply it has a character it does not possess. There is no requirement for epithets to be meaningful, relevant or even truthful and those such as 'Earliest of All' should be permitted. Art. 17.13.
Art. 17.17. Could this be deleted as well? The use of "transformed" or "improved" may show little imagination but it could be helpful in maintaining a link with an original cultivar. Many of the same changes noted under Art. 17 above could be made in the provisions of Art. 19, names of cultivar-groups. Art. 20 (also Art. 2.11 Ex.5) Whenever a graft-chimaera arises there is always the possibility for two versions (i.e., cultivars) to exist. By giving a graft-chimaera a botanical name, e.g.. +Crataegomespilus dardarii, the option is open to give each version a separate cultivar name, in this case 'Bronvaux' and 'Jules d'Asnières', and maintain the link between them via the specific epithet. As now conceived, the rules do not allow for maintenance of that link and in the example given force the re-naming of one cultivar ('Bronvaux' to 'Dardarii'). This is unfortunate and could be avoided by the use of the cultivar-group +Crataegomespilus (Dardarii Group) 'Bronvaux' etc. The same would apply to infrageneric graft-chimaeras. Additionally, these currently have no means of identifying their nature, being styled simply as cultivars. Since there are so few of them, would it not be admissible to make them a special case and allow use of a plus sign between genus and cultivar epithet, viz: Syringa +'Correlata'? Art. 24.5 (cf also Art. 10.2). This is a strange provision which should be amended. When a name is established in a publication of a statutory plant registering authority the author of the epithet must be the applicant not the authority. This parallels the adoption of the registrant as author where establishment is via an International Registration Authority. It ought to be noted that a name may well have been established prior to its publication in, for example, a Plant Variety Rights gazette. There is no reason for the latter publication to take precedence (unless the name has been changed). Is it acceptable that one of the conditions for establishment (a published description) is often not met by PVR gazettes? Art. 26 The re-use of cultivar epithets causes many problems and should be outlawed. Surely people should have enough imagination to come up with something new that will be equally saleable? Further comments
|
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Proposals to amend the Code (2)
Art. 1.1. VKC would like to see the full introduction of the word "culton" to replace the phrase "systematic groups of cultivated plants" and any of its equivalents. Art. 3. Add a Note 2 saying that the selection "epithet" may only be used in conjunction with the full cultivar name and may not replace it or any part of it. Art. 3.2. Delete this Article. It is a contradictory statement. Selections are made exactly with the reason to create a slight difference in the distinguishing characters, or often are. Art. 4.1, Note 1. We earnestly urge that this Note be deleted. VKC has optedin the past for unambiguous categories to be used for cultivated plant classifications and this Note seriously corrupts the original, clear-cut concept of this category as worded in Art. 4.1. It is illogical to have two different concepts underlying one and the same classification category. There is no way to avoid ambiguity of the meaning of cultivar-group names if they can cover two different concepts. If there is a need for a category based upon Note 1 and Ex. 5, then that would require discussion and if accepted, the new category would have to have a different name and the cultivar-group should remain limited to its present precise definition within Art. 4.1. We refer to the never-ending discussions of the "meaning" of the ICBN categories "forma" and "varietas" as a perfect example of the trouble we get in when allowed to use imprecisely or ill-defined categories. Art. 4.4. VKC has discussed this statement. Although it is true and a logical corollary of the "open classification" system of cultivated plants, we feel that it may lead to rejection of the cultivar-group system by international organisations, lawyers etc. The general practice is that such legislative organisations will only accept one classification system for a certain crop. International consensus is usually sought for this. In order not to alarm such organisations and have them reject the idea of cultivar-groups, we ask the Commission to delete this Article and add it to the glossary under "Classification". In this item of the glossary, the term "open classification" needs to be inserted and explained. We also discussed the fact that in cases when cultivars have been classified into cultivar-groups, and a particular cultivar has not been so classified, a user may not know whether this is the result of a lack of knowledge about a cultivar's classification, or merely the omission of the cultivar-group name for other reasons. We considered the possibility of introducing a device, especially for IRAs, reading "CP", meaning "classification pending", when the IRA has not yet established or been informed to what cultivar-group a cultivar belongs. This would be helpful in the publication of checklists etc. by IRAs. Maybe the use of such a device could be added to the guidelines for IRAs. Art. 6.1. Replace the word "taxon" with "taxon, group of taxa, or culton". Art. 6.2. Add to the explanation of denomination class the other groups of categories that may constitute such a class, i.e., "group of genera, etc". Art. 11. The use of the term "trade designation" would be better expanded to include every term/designation used to market products and which is not the accepted cultivar epithet. It is impossible for everyone to be sure that a trademark is indeed one. The term "trade designation" can cover everything and we needn't worry about the status of such a designation as being a trademark or not. In different countries one designation may have a different legal status. We need a general catch-all term. Therefore we reject Note 1. This automatically implies rewriting Art. 11.1 and any Article or glossary item with "trade designation" in it, so as to give a broader meaning to the term. We also need a note explaining the difference between "trade designation" and "synonym". In general VKC is unhappy with this Article. It puts quite a lot of emphasis on a phenomenon that is not to be part of nomenclature. We suggest a relocation of this item outside the Articles. Art. 12. Add examples of situations in which Standards are a necessity (as in Art. 14.4). Since Seattle, VKC has promoted the concept that a Standard must be prepared of the standard cultivar of a new cultivar-group as this cultivar is important yet may have the typical ephemeral life-span of so many cultivars. We would like to maintain our position on this. Art. 16.4. VKC favours a more radical discouragement to creating hybrid binomina for culta. In that light, Ex. 4 can be deleted. Art. 16 Ex. 7. This urges too strongly the use of "×inodorum", whereas that part of the name is not obligatory at all. This example in fact supports the use of a hybrid binomen. Art. 17. Note 1. This is important enough to be made an Article. Art. 17.6. There is ambiguity among the Japanese about this. Japanese consider a cultivar epithet to be a sentence and so the parts of it must not be connected and should not start with a capital. The Commission is urged to look into this carefully. Where does this connection convention originate from? Art. 17.11 & Ex. 14. Why does ICNCP accept colours as epithets when they have a different form than just "red" etc? The epithet remains to be solely descriptive and as such inadmissible. To state that "well known" colour names are accepted, pushes the English language too much up front. How does one define "well known"? We move to strike this intention. Art. 17.13. Since this Article is open to many interpretations, we suggest that decisions be deferred to IRAs. Art. 18. Some of us feel that by leaving names of selections to be formed at everybody's own whim, may become a confusing. Could there be any guidance in ICNCP? Art. 19.3. We advise not to let the choice between parentheses or square brackets be open. There seems to be no reason for it, so we advise the consistent use of parentheses. Art. 19.6. Because of its importance, we advise to have this Article follow Art. 19.1 immediately and have it renumbered as Art. 19.2. Art. 21.1. VKC suggests a discussion be held on the use of electronic media in publishing new cultivar names. It may well be so that publishing new cultivars via e.g., the Internet, is much easier for IRAs or others than by expensive printed form. Art. 25.1, Ex. 3. This example may be too much focused on one solution, whereas the solution Hosta (Fortunei Group) 'Albopicta' is an alternative presented only later in Ex. 2, Note 1. We suggest that these notes be merged into one. The wording of Art. 25.1 suggests that in Hosta, the epithet "fortunei" will be incorporated in those cultivars that have a Latin epithet, whereas all others may not receive "fortunei" as part of their epithet. This seems to counteract the intention of Art. 25.1, which is to maintain historical reference to a number of older, yet different names of a set of cultivars. For some cultivars this mechanism is available while for others it isn't, which results in inconsistency. Cultivar-groups would seem the more consistent alternative and when epithets appear that are not unique in Hosta when a species name is subsumed, then the cultivar-groups can be proposed as denomination classes. Art. 25.3, Ex. 6. This example is wrought with problems e.g., is Fagus sylvatica var. atropunicea/f. atropurpurea a cultivar to begin with? Besides, there are many more cultivars generally known as "purple beeches". Art. 29.6. We consider this article to be superfluous. There must be a general consensus that epithets are not to be changed at will, so no particular cases need to be mentioned. Art. 31.1. We propose to reword the first sentence so as to include not just botanical names in Latin form but all other names, designations, parts of names etc. In this way, Rec. 31A can be omitted: it is contrary to Dutch law (and possibly the laws of other countries too), which states that a trademark may never overshadow a cultivar epithet! This recommendation invites one to do just that. Although it is good practice for ICNCP to state that trade designations may not be written as cultivar epithets, it is out of its league to recommend a certain typography. The Commission would be well-advised to reconsider the practice of using capital letters for trade designations in ICNCP. Arts 32.2 & 32.3. We recommend that these are merged into one, stating that a herbarium voucher has priority as a Standard and that any pictures are only additional. Looking at ornamental plants and many vegetables, the distinguishing characters are most often associated with colour. Therefore using Art. 32.3, it would seem that all ornamental and many vegetable names would have pictures as Standards. This would leave most other characters undetectable on the Standard specimen. Art. 32.5. We think that relying on the policies of seed banks/seed laboratories to preserve seeds for eternity is over-optimistic. With a few exceptions, seed banks do not see themselves as taxonomic institutes but as gene pools. Also we know of no "prevailing statutory provisions" that state that the seeds need to be stored for eternity as identification devices. We recommend that seed samples are considered secondary attributes for a standard of a cultivar, preference being with a herbarium voucher (see above). |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
A note on transliterationfrom the Rapporteur A good deal of correspondence has been noted on the matter of Japanese cultivar epithets being rendered in a Latin (Roman) script. The 1995 Code attempted to provide standards for transliteration generally by referring everyone to a single system, that used by the Library of Congress. The ALA-LC Romanisation Tables published by the Library of Congress (1997 edition) specifies at the outset that the "modified Hepburn system of romanisation as employed in Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary (3rd and later editions) is used" for transcribing Japanese characters into Roman script. The Tables then specify that "the reading of Japanese words follows standard Japanese language usage, insofar as this can be determined from [modern] standard Japanese dictionaries". The Tables then go on to specify which of the subsequent letters are to be capitalised (a concept that does not exist in Japanese), how one copes with punctuation, and which words or word-elements are to be hyphenated. The Code specifies two departures from these conventions: the particle "no" is hyphenated on each side (Art. 28.6) and each word starts with an upper-case letter except in certain circumstances (Art. 17.6). Japanese words depend on their pronunciation ("reading" in Library of Congress terminology) for their proper meaning and the characters employed show when a vowel sound is to be pronounced long or short. Long vowel sounds have their transcribed vowel capped with a diacritical sign - either a macron ¯ (otherwise called an overscore) or a caret, e.g., Ô, ô, Û, û. A number of IRAs and others have to deal with Japanese cultivar epithets and the Commission was anxious that everyone should deal with the problem in the same way so as to promote consistency. Historically, transliteration procedures have followed the personal whim of an author, and this has resulted in a number of orthographical variants. Every IRA should now re-examine the original Japanese characters in the light of the specified tables before making a definitive ruling on the presentation of transliterated Japanese cultivar epithets. The next edition of the Code should probably rule more explicitly on transliteration procedures: in particular, there is a case for ruling on the preference for the macron or caret since having the option of alternatives does in effect, create parahomonyms. |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 4 - 29 Apr 1998 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
| Copyright © 2001-2010 The Horticultural Taxonomy Group - Contact us |