Premium
IN REPLY TO MR. WELCH, OR THE STATUS AND RELATIONSHIP OF CULTIVAR AND BOTANICAL CATEGORIES OF INFRASPECIFIC RANK
Author(s) -
Spongberg Stephen A.,
Shaw Elizabeth A.
Publication year - 1975
Publication title -
taxon
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.819
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1996-8175
pISSN - 0040-0262
DOI - 10.2307/1220734
Subject(s) - nomenclature , cultivar , rank (graph theory) , vernacular , biology , botanical garden , epithet , ornamental plant , botany , taxonomy (biology) , linguistics , mathematics , combinatorics , philosophy
Summary When dealing with ornamental woody plants, the term cultivar is most often applied to clones. Under the International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants, however, cultivar has a much wider conceptual definition and a potentially wide range of application. As a category without rank, cultivars may be selected from within a botanical category at any infraspecific rank, may comprise the entire ranked category, or may cut across botanical categories of the same or different rank. Botanical epithets that have been assigned to garden varieties (cultivars), if correctly proposed as botanical combinations, cannot be repudiated because they were based on cultivars. It is not the function of nomenclature to dictate what can and cannot be recognized in the infraspecific classification of a species. Because the intent of botanical nomenclature and the nomenclature of cultivated plants is not the same, the use of Latin epithets should be restricted to botanical considerations. New cultivars, even if they comprise ranked botanical categories, should be given fancy or vernacular names to point out this difference of intention.