HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 5 - |
Editorial NotesIt is now just over three years since the last part of this "occasional" newsletter came into being, and having vowed not to do another, the members of HORTAX have persuaded me to come out of my closet to oversee production of this for one last time. In fact, I promised that this would have come out early last year, so I acknowledge the patience of my fellow HORTAXers as the birth pangs become a reality! So much has happened since issue of the last newsletter, the most important of which was, of course, the Edinburgh symposium which by all accounts was a brilliant success and a tribute to my fellow HORTAX members who organised such a memorable occasion with such expertise and vision. There were 168 participants from 30 countries gathered in the ancient city of Edinburgh for the Third International Symposium on the Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants, 20-26 July, 1998, by far and away more than the attendance at the previous symposia (Wageningen, 1985 and Seattle, 1994), a tribute to the organisation behind the event and a testament to the increasing interest and participation in the disciplines surrounding cultivated plant taxonomy. The meeting was later crowned by the publication of the Proceedings which came out at the beginning of last year in a publication superbly edited by Susyn Andrews assisted by Alan Leslie and Crinan Alexander. All those attending the symposium received a copy, but to those who could not come, and who have not yet seen a copy, I urge that you acquire a copy of this beautifully produced book. As publishers of these proceedings, titled "Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants", the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew have done us proud. The ISBN number is 1 900347 89 X and the work may be obtained via the Kew Scientific Publications Web page:
http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/data/subject.html The Edinburgh symposium will be a very hard act to follow, but planning for the 4th International Symposium is already well under way. A large part of this newsletter is given over to explaining how it will work as Symposium 22 within the XXVIth International Horticultural Congress, Toronto, 2002. These Congresses occur every four years and are organised by a selected host country for the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), the organisation who, amongst many other activities, promotes and maintains the system of International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRAs). As one of the Conveners for this particular Symposium, I hope and trust that many of you will be able to attend. The Congress organisers have gone to great lengths to make this a memorable occasion: there will be ample opportunity to meet others from different disciplines who share a common purpose in the advancement in the science of horticulture. It will certainly be a time for concentrating on unfinished business left over from the Edinburgh symposium, for meeting old friends and establishing new contacts. In particular, I hope that as many Registrars as possible from ICRAs may be present. There will be further meetings on the development of the next edition of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) and the body overseeing that Code will want to collect as much evidence and opinion as possible from those engaged in any aspect of cultivated plant taxonomy. Up to date information on all aspects of the Congress may be found at: http://www.ihc2002.org/ while the details of the 4th Symposium will be revealed as they develop on:
http://www.ihc2002.org/ihc2002/multi_day-symposia_S22.htm New Chairman of HORTAXAfter ten years since she co-founded the Horticultural Taxonomy Group, Susyn Andrews stepped down as Chairman after the Edinburgh symposium. That this informal group of horticultural taxonomists with differing interests achieved so much under her stewardship says much about the energy and vigour that she put into establishing HORTAX not only as a UK organisation, but one recognised throughout the world as promoting standards of excellence.
She is succeeded by Crinan Alexander, who as many of you will know, was the chief organiser behind the Edinburgh symposium. Crinan has his own visions for the future which he outlines in The Role of HORTAX - Some thoughts from the Chairman later in this publication. William T. Stearn
As this newsletter is about to go to press we learn that one of the giants of botanical science, Professor W T Stearn has died having just celebrated his 90th birthday. William Stearn was very much the father of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants having almost single-handedly written its first edition - he gave a highly amusing account of how the Code finally came about in his key-note address at the First International Symposium on Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants, Wageningen in August 1985. This scholarly paper was reproduced in the proceedings, Acta Horticulturae Vol 182. 19-28. 1986. Anyone interested in the history of nomenclature should read this from time to time. Those of us attending the Edinburgh symposium will well recall one of his last public talks on the early introduction of plants from Japan into European gardens. It was a privilege to be able to see the Master in action and still making a contribution to science and understanding. I for one will miss him, his oft-repeated anecdotes and most of all, his friendship and advice. Next Edition of the Code
Immediately following the Edinburgh symposium (while everyone else was off enjoying their post-conference tour!), the IUBS Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants met in closed session to consider amendments for the Cultivated Plant Code. With so many issues arising from the open forum meeting, there was not enough time to resolve all the problems raised and a further meeting will be held in Toronto after the next symposium with a view to issuing the next edition of the Code in 2003. In the meantime, as Rapporteur, I can reveal that it was resolved that there will be no mention of the term "culton", nor indeed will the word "taxon" appear: the next edition will remove much botanical jargon in an effort to become even more user-friendly for those non-taxonomists that the Code is designed to serve. I can also foreshadow clarification of the group concept and a reduction in the existing regulations for the formation of cultivar epithets, along with more detail of how to cope with trade designations and trademarks. Readers of previous issues of HORTAX NEWS will be familiar with these controversial themes. Trademarks present particular problems in nomenclature and at the end of this newsletter, I have contributed a piece on the subject which I hope clarifies the subject as well as providing further food for thought and debate. IRAs become ICRAs!As some will know, last year I succeeded Chris Brickell as Chairman of the ISHS Commission on Registration and Nomenclature. One of the first problems that I encountered was the fact that the term "International Registration Authority" meant little to those who did not know that it had anything to do with plants! The acronym was rather unfortunate and presented "political" difficulties with some governmental agencies since it was the same as a controversial organisation that had had a history of proscription. The new term "International Cultivar Registration Authority" is more descriptive and was formally adopted at the end of last year. This new name, together with its acronym ICRA, is far easier to find with internet searches. All information on ICRAs may now be found on a comprehensive set of pages within the ISHS Web site, including details of new appointments and links to related sites which have a bearing on cultivated plant nomenclature. Each of the 70 ICRAs has its own sub-page with full contact information and details of its activities. I invite you to visit:
http://www.ishs.org/sci/icra.htm European Garden Flora
The publication of Volume VI on 2nd November 2000 brought this ambitious project to an end. The result is a definitive Flora for the accurate identification of plants cultivated for amenity in Europe, both out-of-doors and under glass, covering about 18,000 species. About 200 authors world-wide have contributed accounts, which have been edited and prepared for publication by the secretariat at The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. The work, funded by a number of sponsors including The Royal Horticultural Society and The Stanley Smith Horticultural Trust (UK), is published by Cambridge University Press from whom discounted six-volume sets are now available. HORTAX Web SiteThis last printed issue of our newsletter coincides with the launch of our Web site in which you may find details of HORTAX activities, past, present and future. We have tried to keep the site user-friendly and easy to access without too much clutter. At present you will find profiles of individual HORTAX members and notices of symposia, together with back issues of HORTAX NEWS in electronic format, and a links page compiled with horticultural nomenclature in mind. The site will expand over time so I hope you bookmark the URL or add it to your favourites and revisit to keep up-to-date with our activities. |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 5 - 31 May 2001 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
The Role of HORTAX -
|
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 5 - 31 May 2001 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Postscript: The 3rd International Symposium on the Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants, Edinburgh, 1998
It's not often that one looks at a conference programme and realises that every single aspect of it appears to be unmissable. That was the feeling I had on the train to Edinburgh in July 1998 and it somehow seemed appropriate that I got talking to an American sitting next to me who wanted to know what all the crops were that we were seeing out of the train window. I resisted the temptation to bore him with my observations on the increasing trackside frequency of self-sown, yellow-foliaged Sambucus canadensis or clonal variation in Epilobium angustifolium as we sped north. One of the most valuable aspects of the Symposium was the presence of a significant number of highly experienced non-professional botanists. This was evident from the first day, when UK National Collection holders revealed findings from research on their collections. On the same day, we heard how a surprising number of common species in cultivation are represented by only one clone. This fact contrasts rather strikingly with the diversity of some cultivar collections. The second day heralded a shift in pace as the ornamental seed trade led us in to their fast-moving commercial world. This was, to me, the most alien and interesting aspect of horticultural taxonomy to be unveiled at the Symposium. The presentations made clear the difficulties we have when trying to place the products of the ornamental seed industry into a taxonomic framework. I think everyone benefited from the exchange of ideas, especially those involved in producing the next edition of the ICNCP. Likewise the next sessions, on trademarks, patents, and plant variety rights, further areas where nomenclatural regulations may need to take more account of users' needs and commercial practice. It was reassuring to hear from Registrars world-wide who are creating nomenclatural stability through their activities. I know there were several Registrars present in the audience and I am sure they were as distressed as I was to hear about the problems faced by rose registration in the USA. The culton concept received a good airing the next morning and was probably the most popular topic of conversation throughout the week in the non-hierarchical environment of the conference bar. The same environment was very conducive to the formation of shifting cultivar-groups, perhaps helping delegates to formulate their ideas on such things prior to the Open Discussion on the ICNCP. From some point during the week, I have this vague memory of the launch of an association for cultivated plant taxonomy. The impact of the microchip and molecular biology was much in evidence towards the end of the week with sessions on databases and DNA fingerprinting. Practitioners were demonstrating their powers and gently revolutionising the practice of horticultural taxonomy. The poster room provided a cool retreat and emphasised the international flavour of the Symposium. The delegate list revealed there were participants from 30 countries present. If one wanted to get even cooler, or wetter, then one ventured outside to admire the amazing display of Dierama, Eryngium and that white daisy (was it Chiliotrichum?) around the campus. If you wanted to get really soaked, you went on the coach trip to Logan Botanic Garden, although the garden is ample reward for any discomfort. For the mid-conference excursion I went to Dawyck Botanic Garden where Pseudotsuga menziesii made more of an impression than the eponymous beech. That visit reminded me of a story I heard from a non-horticultural member of the RHS staff who, on an earlier visit to that garden was promised sight of the famous Dawyck beech. She replied that she didn't realise it was a trip to the seaside. I may have missed the beach, but I wouldn't have missed the Symposium for anything!
|
|
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 5 - 31 May 2001 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
XXVIth International Horticultural Congress,
|
Important Dates
Deadline for submission of abstracts:
Acceptance/non-acceptance notices to be received by:
Official notification of oral or poster presentation:
For your abstract to appear in the abstract book the
Manuscripts of papers selected for inclusion in a volume |
Abstracts can be submitted 'on line' via the Internet, by e-mail attachment, or by sending us a diskette by airmail. On-line submission is our preferred option. Please use one method of transmission only. Complete the on-line form available at http://www.ihc2002.org/ or using the downloadable MSWord template to provide us with all of the information asked for below. Send us this file either by e-mail to IHCabstracts@em.agr.ca or on a diskette sent by air mail to:
International Horticultural Congress
c/o Dr. Peter Hicklenton Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Atlantic Food and Horticulture Research Centre
32 Main Street
Kentville
Nova Scotia
Canada, B4N 1J5
If you are unable to use the MSWord downloadable template, please provide the following information at the head of your word processor (MSWord or WordPerfect) file. The abstract complete with all required contact information must reach IHC2002 by October 15, 2001. Contact information is required only for the presenting author who should carefully verify all details before submitting. Remember that the presenting author must be registered for the Congress by April 15, 2002 for the abstract to appear in the Program.
Information to be entered at top of abstract file:
Note: Text may be entered across a standard width 'page'. It is not necessary to type within a box.
|
Name: Dr. Anthony Davies Affiliation: Canadian National University Mailing Address: Institute for Biotechnology, Canadian National University, Harlow Hall, 75 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1F5, Canada. Telephone: (416) 354-2745 Fax: (416) 354-3411 E-Mail: Adavies @cnu.ca1st choice symposium: S1; Biotechnology or Horticultural Crop... 2nd choice symposium: S14; Berry Crop Breeding, Production and... 3rd choice symposium: S4; Environmental stress and horticultural... Eligible for poster competition: No Are you willing to present the paper orally if requested? Yes Differential Gene Expression Following Cold Temperature Stress in Raspberry A. Davies*1, T.R. Spinola1, K.A. Harmon2 and S. Edwards3
1 Institute for Biotechnology, Canadian National University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5W 1F5 Cold temperature stress in summer fruiting red raspberry is known... (no more than 300 words) |
Prizes will be awarded for the best student poster associated with each symposium and also to three student posters that are not associated with any particular symposium. Symposium conveners will arrange the judging of symposium-linked posters; Congress SPTF members will evaluate all others. The student must be the first author and the presenting author of the poster. Up to 25 cash awards will be presented on Friday, August 16, 2002.
If you require further information on procedures, dates or any aspect of the XXVIth IHC, please contact the following:
For General Information
XVIth IHC
Congress Canada
Bathurst Street, Suite 101
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5V 2P2
Phone: +1 416-504-4500
Fax: +1 416-504-4505
E-Mail: IHCreg@congresscan.com
On the Scientific Program
Dr Yves Desjardins
Département de phytologie
Pavillon Paul-Comtois, local 3236C
Université Laval
Québec, Canada G1K 7P4
Phone: +1 418.656.2131, poste 2359
Fax: +1 418.656.7856
E-Mail: Yves.Desjardins@plg.ulaval.ca
For further information on Symposium 22 only, contact the Conveners
Steven Clemants (USA) - steveclemants@bbg.org
Campbell Davidson (Canada) - cdavidson@em.agr.ca
Piers Trehane (UK) - piers@indhort.demon.co.uk
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Forthcoming ConferencesRhododendrons in Horticulture and Science,
|
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 5 - 31 May 2001 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Inaugural Meeting of IACPT
The following account has been adapted from the transcript of the meeting. Those present: Trehane, P., (UK) in the Chair and Abugalieva, S.I., (Kazakstan); Alanko, P., (Finland); Alexander, C., (UK); Amerson Jnr, A.B., (USA); Bachmann, K., (Germany); Baum, B.R., (Canada); Berg, R.G. van den, (Netherlands); Brandenburg, W.A., (Netherlands); Brickell, C.D., (UK); Cirtautas, V., (Lithuania); Coombes, A., (UK); Dawson, I.A., (Australia); Fantz, P.R., (USA); Ferguson, A.R., (NZ); Glen, H.F., (RSA); Grant, M.L., (UK); Green, F.N., (UK); Groendijk-Wilders, N., (Netherlands); Haston. E., (UK); Hazekamp, T., (Italy); Hetterscheid, W.L.A., (Netherlands); Hunt, P.F., (UK); Huttunen, M.A., (Finland); Jakobsdóttir, D., (Iceland); Knüpffer, H., (Germany); Lean, A., (UK); Lemmers, W., (Netherlands); Leslie, A.C., (UK); Louneva, N.N., (Russia); Malécot, V., (France); Matthews, V.A., (USA); McAllister, H.A., (UK); McClintock, E., (USA); McGregor, M., (UK); McNeill, J., (Canada); Miller, D.M., (UK); Munson, R.H., (USA); Nurse, M.C., (UK); Ochsmann, J., (Germany); Price, G.R., (USA); Rivera-Núñez, D., (Spain); Rodríguez-Acosta, M., (Mexico); Rutherford, A., (UK); Sadie, J., (RSA); Sandved, M., (Norway); Smekalova, T.N. (Russia); Spencer, R., (Australia); Staples, G., (USA); Stirton, C.H., (UK); Stork, A.L., (Switzerland); Strachan, J.M., (USA); Tebbitt, M., (USA); Thornton-Wood, S.P., (UK); Thorvaldsdóttir, E.G., (Iceland); Vasconcelos, M.T.C., (Portugal); Victor, D., (UK); Waters, T., (UK); Whiteley, A.C., (UK); Whiteman, J., (UK); Wiersema, J.H., (USA); Woods, J. (UK); Woods, P.J.B., (UK). Altogether, 63 people were present. In opening the meeting, Trehane welcomed all those attending and praised the stamina of the participants after what had been a hard-working symposium over the previous few days. Before continuing with the meeting, Trehane asked all those present to sign a register of attendance. Trehane then made reference to the notice in the last edition of Hortax News and the flyer that had been circulated with the conference papers as to the aim of this meeting. The symposium had clearly demonstrated that many of the areas of concern surrounding the discipline of cultivated plant taxonomy required a wider collaborative effort for their resolution. Trehane then introduced the individual members who had joined him on the ad hoc steering committee and who had given advice and support leading up to this meeting. They were Niall Green, Wilbert Hetterscheid, Roger Spencer, George Staples, and Simon Thornton-Wood. Trehane was pleased to report that the Stanley Smith Horticultural Trust (UK) had provided generous funding towards the setting-up costs of this Association and that the Royal Horticultural Society, through the good offices of its Director of Horticulture, Joyce Stewart, had agreed to look after its banking and subscription arrangements for its initial years. A constitution was in the process of being developed which was to be in accordance with Article 60 and following of the Swiss Civil Code. Trehane outlined the general principles of the constitution as provisionally drafted, but stressed that the fine details will have to be determined during the next stage of its development. A number of suggestions were received from the floor which would be referred to an incoming Council for consideration. Trehane then formally moved a number of resolutions: Resolution 1: "That this meeting resolves that an International Association for Cultivated Plant Taxonomy be hereby formally constituted". Carried unanimously by show of hands. Resolution 2: "That this meeting elects the undermentioned as Council members of the International Association for Cultivated Plant Taxonomy and empowers such Council to appoint further members to Council in pursuance of its objectives and further authorises Council to elect the officers of the Association from amongst itself".
Resolution 3: "That this meeting empowers the Council to develop and register a constitution for the Association in accordance with due legal process". Carried unanimously by show of hands. In response from a question from the floor, Trehane outlined that once the constitution was in place, the officers appointed, and the annual subscription was decided, a mailing would be made to as many as possible, inviting them to subscribe to the Association. The possibility of establishing a category of charter members would be examined. On the question of the Association producing a regular scientific publication, Trehane stated that this had to be a matter of priority, but that such a publication could not appear until the Association's finances could sustain it. In the meantime, it was suggested that a newsletter might be produced to keep the membership informed about progress. Trehane mentioned that he had been invited to organise a mini-symposium at the forthcoming International Botanical Congress in St. Louis and that he would be doing this under the aegis of this Association. In conclusion, Trehane reminded the meeting that there would be a considerable workload placed on a few. He was prepared to make his personal commitment towards developing the Association, but it had to be remembered that he, as everyone else, already had responsibilities and duties and that the meeting must not expect everything to be in place overnight. A milestone had been achieved this evening and he thanked everyone present for their support.
|
||||
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 5 - 31 May 2001 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Standard Specimens at Wisley
For well over 100 years the Royal Horticultural Society has held meetings giving the opportunity for new garden plants to be exhibited and judged for RHS awards. The results have been recorded in the Society's publications, in many cases with details of the origin or parentage of the plant and a description. During the last century these accounts were not always sufficiently detailed to be useful, but nowadays the descriptions backed by herbarium specimens and/or illustrations of new plants judged by RHS committees, either after trial or during a meeting, are a good record for future horticultural taxonomists. The RHS Horticultural Herbarium at Wisley holds a collection of about 4,000 invaluable paintings of plants which have received awards between about 1920 and 1950, many of which are the first records of the new cultivars. In addition, there are over 20,000 photographic transparencies of plants. The RHS Horticultural Herbarium is therefore in a unique position to assess their collection of specimens and illustrations to decide which represent Standards. Over the past year, every specimen and a large proportion of the photographs have been examined, the records carefully examined, international registers, check lists and monographs consulted and where appropriate nurserymen or exhibitors contacted. Each name has been checked for valid publication (establishment). Any related material or photographs have been linked to form a Standard Portfolio and all the information, including any history, parentage and references, is recorded on the RHS Horticultural Database. In the majority of cases, where both are available, the specimen is designated the Standard but where a photograph illustrates the distinctive characters more clearly or where there is no specimen, this has been selected. Although we have erred very much on the side of caution and many probable Standards have been dismissed due to us having insufficient reliable information for confirmation, over 1,500 specimens have so far been designated as Standards. The current list of designated Standards in the RHS Herbarium, together with further details and many with illustrations of the living plants may be viewed on the RHS Web site at:
http://www.rhs.org/science/mn_hb_standards.asp This then is the first stage in creating a "register" of Standard specimens. We are actively seeking the co-operation of nurserymen, growers and hybridisers so that in the long term, specimens and illustrations, together with useful descriptions, of as many new British cultivars as possible will be prepared and their storage location recorded. Another associated project now underway is to look at the painting and photographic collections for possible Standards. I anticipate that there will be a substantial number and at present the records in the RHS archives and the names are being thoroughly investigated. Many photographs have already been scanned to a digital format and, later this year, the paintings which prove to be Standards will also be scanned and made available on the RHS Web site. Anyone who has tried to confirm the names of older cultivars from limited catalogue descriptions will have come across problems of identification and will realise the important contribution that the designation of Standards can make but even more so, knowledge of the whereabouts of these Standards is essential. This project is therefore a major step towards helping to stabilise the nomenclature of garden plants thus easing the work of future horticultural taxonomists, as well as creating an important historical record. I hope that other institutions maintaining Standards will be prepared to undertake a similar survey of their collections. With the records held in a compatible database, a Web site, and a little knowledge of technology, all the information can be linked to create a universal searchable Web site and an invaluable international resource. Several curators and others have indicated their support for this initiative, and a few have lodged Standards in the RHS Herbarium. Please contact me with any questions or advice on starting to look for Standards as well as your thoughts and ideas on this worthwhile project. Selected literature: Miller, D. M. 1995. Standard Specimens for Cultivated Plants. Acta Horticulturae 413: 35-39. Miller, D. M. 1998. Raising Standards. The Garden 124(4): 282 - 283. Trehane, P. 1993. Standard Specimens and Standard Illustrations. Hortax News 1(1): 12-16. Trehane, P. et al. 1995. International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants - 1995. Quarterjack Publishing, Wimborne. [Article 12, Article 32, page 159] |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 5 - 31 May 2001 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
Trademarks are not Names
The proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Cultivated Plant Taxonomy at Edinburgh featured two major contributions on trademarks (Tramposch, 2000, Gioia, 2000). The apparent use of trademarks still causes difficulty to International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRAs), to those who list plant names in databases, to those labelling plants and indeed to the ultimate consumer, the gardener. In fact, it is obvious that even to some of those who coin trademarks, the correct use of these marks is not fully understood. It is not always apparent as to what is a trademark and what is a name and in this piece I hope to illustrate the difference and discuss some problems stemming from the realisation that trademarks and names are quite different entities. The naming system Modern bionomenclature generally uses what is termed a binominal system for naming organisms. This system stems from the work of Linnaeus's Species Plantarum (1753) who introduced the concept of the nomen triviale as a shorthand method of referring to species which has been fully named under the ancient naming system of using the nomen specificum legitimum (Stearn, 1957). These "phrase names" were becoming increasingly cumbersome as they reflected expanding diagnostic differences between taxonomic groups, with the result that as a plethora of new plants were becoming known during this Age of Enlightenment, novel and longer true names were being required. The neat Linnaean device of the binomen was a welcome innovation soon adopted by other natural historians, but it had a significant side-effect: it moved the naming process away from taxonomy. Both the introduction of the binomen and, some two hundred years later, the acceptance of the type-method of nomenclature (replacing circumscription) separated the science of taxonomy from the discipline of nomenclature. It is worth remembering this so as to remind ourselves that the purpose of a name is essentially one of human communication to designate one distinguishable item from another. This simple dictum is featured in the introduction of all the Codes of nomenclature: I quote from the Preamble of the current Cultivated Plant Code: "The purpose of giving a name to a taxonomic group of cultivated plants is not to indicate its characters or history, but to supply a means of referring to it and to indicate its taxonomic status" (Trehane et al., 1995). Cultivated plant nomenclature works on the binominal system as does the nomenclature for animals, bacteria and feral plants. Just as the rank of species is considered to be the "basic" taxon of feral plants (Greuter et al., 2000: Art. 2.1), so too is the cultivar designated the "basic taxon of cultivated plants" (Trehane et al., 1995: Art. 2.1). While the binomen of a species is the name of a genus plus the specific epithet, the binomen of a cultivar is, essentially, the name of a genus plus the cultivar epithet. Of course, cultivar epithets are often of more than one word whereas specific epithets have to be a single word. Since the binominal system has become so entrenched in our scientific language, it has, de facto, become the international and universal means of communicating names, not just to scientists but to all who have the need to use accurate and unambiguous plant (not to mention animal and bacteria) names. Trademarks Let us remind ourselves what trademarks are by looking at the way they are defined. The Cultivated Plant Code defines the term in its glossary (Trehane et al., 1995) as "any sign (usually made from words, letters, numbers or other devices such as logotypes) that individualizes the goods of a given enterprise and distinguishes them from the goods of its competitors." Tramposch (2000) refines this further "for practical purposes" as "a sign which serves to distinguish the goods of one enterprise from those of another enterprise". So trademarks are coined and maintained by enterprises for the purposes of identifying their goods as originating from themselves: as such they act as a self appointed badge of superiority over similar goods from other enterprises. The onus is on the owner of a trademark to protect it, and in many countries there is provision to register such marks which helps to protect infringement from competitors either accidentally or with intent. Marks which are so protected are, by international treaty, entitled to bear the symbol "®" while those which are self-claimed without benefit of national registration are recognised by use of the symbol "". In both cases it is up to the mark owner to protect the mark and this must be done to maintain lasting use of the mark. A trademark has be seen to be used and it must be used properly if it is to retain its status. In particular, rights will be lost of the mark itself becomes "generic", i.e., when it "defines a category or type to which the goods belong" (Tramposch, 2000). In legal jargon (as opposed to botanical terminology), the names of taxonomic groups of plants are generic designations, whether they be species or cultivars or the name of any other taxon established under any set of accepted rules. One of the main reasons whereby trademarks lose their status is when they become generic designations by careless maintenance of their owner. The famous case of Aspirin loosing its trademark status due to the Bayer Company failing to prevent the word becoming a household name and thus coming into public usage as a generic description for acetylsalicylic acid has been well documented (cf. Gioia, 1995). Trademarks for plant material too can, and often do, fail to maintain their original status when there are insufficient steps taken by their owners to prevent them becoming generic designations. Some nurseries have taken expert advice as to how to maintain trademarks for use with plant material and this can give an enterprising nursery marketing department a distinct advantage in selling their goods. The firm of J. Frank Schmidt & Son Co. from Boring, Oregon, USA is a massive wholesale firm shipping quality products all over North America and examination of their 1999-2000 catalogue of container-grown shade and flowering trees provides interesting examples of how to protect trademarks as well as providing evidence of how trademarks might fail. The trick is to consistently provide the generic designation for the cultivar alongside the trademark in all marketing literature and promotional material. This means that for cultivars, one always provides the cultivar name. A trademark may be coined to mark the fact that the cultivar produced by such-and-such nursery is of special quality peculiar to that enterprise and this trademark will accompany the selling literature generated by the firm in question. In the Schmidt catalogue cited above, there are a number of "names" which bear closer scrutiny. Acer platinoides 'Columnarbroad' is a cultivar name used but the catalogue clearly shows that the cultivar is sold as Parkway® maple. The indication is that Parkway is a registered trademark used for Schmidt's product of Acer platinoides 'Columnarbroad'. To check whether or not Parkway is, in fact, a registered trademark, one can consult the US Trademark database where one will find that Parkway is indeed a trademark owned by J. Frank Schmidt & Son Co, with the registration number 1405184, dated 08/12/1986 for use for "cultivated deciduous trees" in international goods class 31. Similarly, the cultivar Acer 'Keithsform' which is said to be a hybrid between A. platanoides and A. truncatum and which name is established by grant of US plant patent number 7529 is sold under the mark Norwegian Sunset® granted (number 1915260) to the same company for use with "living trees". In both these cases, Schmidt is marketing the cultivars under trademarks and not cultivar names which are nevertheless simultaneously provided so as to maintain the status of the trademarks used by providing the true generic designations. No attempt is made to market either an Acer Parkway or an Acer Norwegian Sunset. It must therefore be incumbent upon those who list names, not to use a format in which subsequent confusion might exist. In creating alphabetic lists of Acer cultivars, the words Parkway or Norwegian Sunset must never be aligned within Acer, since neither is an epithet. Both these marks stand independently of any botanical genus name. Certainly, they may never be considered binomina: if anything they are uninomina which do not fit into a hierarchical relationship with any other taxon name below Plantae! Even nurserymen get confused about using trademarks for which they invest a considerable amount of time and effort in establishing and maintaining. In the same Schmidt catalogue the cultivars Acer rubrum 'Autumn Flame' and Acer rubrum 'October Glory' are offered for sale under the proclaimed registered trademarks Autumn Flame and October Glory respectively. Both these trademarks must fail, since they imitate the stated cultivar epithets exactly and as stated before, trademarks cannot be upheld if they imitate generic designations. Since cultivar epithets are "universally available in all countries for use by any person to denote a particular cultivar" (Trehane et al., 1995: Prin. 6), they are already in the public domain and, I would suggest, any subsequent attempt to turn them into trademarks has to ultimately fail. Nurserymen make mistakes in their lists: in fact I have not been able to trace a registered trademark Autumn Flame. October Glory® is more interesting: it was granted trademark status to another famous nursery group, Princeton Nurserymen's Research Associates in 1974 for use for "maple trees, scions, buds, stem cuttings and root cuttings of the acer rubrum species" and it was noted that the mark was first used commercially in 1961. However, if the mark has been used for a particular cultivar that does not have a particular generic designation, it is highly likely that it has become the de facto generic designation for that cultivar (I can find no evidence of other cultivar names in the promotional material) so the trademark has surely failed and anyone may now be free to use 'October Glory' as a cultivar epithet for that Acer cultivar. The distinction between trademarks and trade designations as defined in the Cultivated Plant Code (Trehane et al., 1995: Art. 11.1) is not always interpreted correctly by some nurserymen. The 1999 Wholesale Catalogue from Monrovia, California & Oregon, USA exemplifies this. A great many cultivar names are listed and an alternative marketing name is provided for each, usually made up from vernacular equivalents, common names (common in the USA, presumably) and what are apparently colloquial names (the differences in concept are amplified in the Glossary to the Code). Many Monrovia introductions have coded cultivar names, quite properly enclosed in single quotation marks to illustrate their status. However, a self-claimed trademark is often included within the alternative names provided. Looking at the overall style of the publication, it becomes clear that these "trademarks" are not trademarks at all but are merely selling names - trade designations in the parlance of the Code. The trademarks are directly linked within the alternative selling name and do not stand alone as uninomina. Although the catalogue explicitly states that such trademarks are the property of Monrovia, I very much doubt that they would be upheld as being such under legal examination. One nursery that seems to use trademarks correctly is Lake County Nursery in Ohio, USA. Examination of their 1991 Catalogue is revealing. On page 81 in the section on Malus, they promote Sugar Tyme® as a trademark for Malus 'Sutyzam' and as a "common name" they cite Sutyzam Crab. In addition, they state quite clearly that Sugar Tyme® is registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office (it is, under registration number 1367990 dated 10/29/1985). Similarly on page 99, they promote Snow Fountains® as a trademark for Prunus 'Snofozam', with the marketing name Snofozam Weeping Cherry. Again, they assert their right to the trademark by stating that Snow Fountains® is registered with the trademark office. This general approach leaves nobody in any doubt as to what is going on. The generic designation is clear and the trademark, along with its status in law is transparent. Not many individual nursery firms around the world employ trademarks for selling individual cultivars: they are more commonly used as general marketing concepts to promote excellence from the trademark owner. However, it would be helpful to all those who have to analyse "names" if a consistent approach was made by those nursery sources who do invest so heavily in the system. While the trademark system rightly rewards those who invest in promoting new plant material, what the world requires is a common-sense and unambiguous system of nomenclature that operates in a world in which plants are traded internationally. Literature cited:
Greuter, W, McNeill, J., Barrie, F. R., Burdet, H. M., Demoulin, V., Filgueiras, T. S., Nicolson, D. H., Silva, P. C., Skog, J. E., Trehane, P., Turland, N. J. & Hawksworth, D. L. (eds). 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Saint Louis Code). Adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress St. Louis, Missouri, July-August 1999. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany. (Regnum veg. 138). Stearn, W. T. 1957. Introduction to the Species Plantarum and cognate botanical works of Carl Linnaeus. Pp. i-xiv; 1-126 in: Linnaeus, Species Plantarum. A facsimile of the first edition. Ray Society, London. Tramposch, A. 2000. Introduction to trademarks: loss of trademark rights for generic terms. Pp. 73-79 in Andrews, S., Leslie, A. C., & Alexander, C., (eds) Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. 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, UK. (Regnum veg. 133). |
| HORTAX NEWS Vol 1, Part 5 - 31 May 2001 |
Home page | Index of Newsletters | Contents |
| Copyright © 2001-2011 The Horticultural Taxonomy Group - Contact us |