# What's in a name?



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

Daniel Falck said:


> _E. grisebachii_ 'Bleherae' - the name ought to be written like that since Kasselmann made a cultivar of it last year (2010).)


A cultivar is a plant created by artificial selection/hybridizing/ etc, not something that is naturally occurring. But yes, I do think that's a good way to write the name.


----------



## Daniel Falck (Feb 18, 2011)

*Re: Need help identifying my plants*

I think I have to disagree with you there, Cavan.
A cultivar is, according to the International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (7th ed, 2004), "an assemblage of plants that has been selected for a particular attribute or combination of attributes and that is clearly distinct, uniform, and stable in these characteristics and that when propagated by appropriate means retains those characteristics." (2.2.) So, to my understanding, a selection from a natural population can be a cultivar, too.

Another question is whether 'Bleherae' is a naturally occurring form/variety/ssp./ etc of _E. grisebachii_. The species was described from a cultivated plant. Later collections from nature seem to be missing.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

*Re: Need help identifying my plants*



Daniel Falck said:


> I think I have to disagree with you there, Cavan.
> A cultivar is, according to the International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (7th ed, 2004), "an assemblage of plants that has been selected for a particular attribute or combination of attributes and that is clearly distinct, uniform, and stable in these characteristics and that when propagated by appropriate means retains those characteristics." (2.2.)


Right, but as far as we know, it wasn't selected for any characteristic. Presumably, it is naturally occurring (no evidence to the contrary?) and has not been altered by anyone. That does not make it a cultivar.



Daniel Falck said:


> So, to my understanding, a selection from a natural population can be a cultivar, too.


If that were so, we could call all cultivated plants cultivars. Propagating a mutated plant is perhaps a situation that's less clear.


----------



## Daniel Falck (Feb 18, 2011)

*Re: Need help identifying my plants*



Cavan Allen said:


> Right, but as far as we know, it wasn't selected for any characteristic. Presumably, it is naturally occurring (no evidence to the contrary?) and has not been altered by anyone. That does not make it a cultivar.
> If that were so, we could call all cultivated plants cultivars. Propagating a mutated plant is perhaps a situation that's less clear.


Actually, all the cultivated plants should be called cultivars (or cultigens) and be ordered with the ICNCP and not International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.  However, I agree that this is not a point that is agreed on by everyone. Many a botanists would love it, though.  A cultivar doesn't have to have been altered by anyone; all is needed that a plant with certain desirable stable characteristics is _selected_ by someone (and then named, and published following all the rules and regulations).

Well, one evidence to the contrary re: 'Bleherae' could be that it hasn't been collected from the nature since then. Of course, this could be just because no one has gone to the exact location... there could be a local population like it. No natural location is known to Rataj... nor to others. This strongly suggests that it might not be naturally occurring. 

Just to make this clear to me, are you saying that selections from natural growth forms, for example, Picea abies 'Echiniformis' or similar, are not a cultivars?


----------



## miremonster (Mar 26, 2006)

*Re: Need help identifying my plants*

Very informative discussion, thank You both!
Whether cultivar sensu lato or sensu stricto - I'd say, in many cases botanical names alone, even subspecies and variety names, are not sufficient for cultivated plants, and additional "non-ICBN" names are necessary.
But a major issue is that there are too few exact descriptions and pics of many new plants appearing in the trade.

Is the old cultivar Picea abies 'Echiniformis' a clone from a plant found in the wild and not altered in culture? Then it's comparable to Rotala mexicana 'Goias'.

-Heiko


----------



## Daniel Falck (Feb 18, 2011)

*Re: Need help identifying my plants*

Thank you, Heiko.
I agree completely that for _cultivation purposes_ a non-ICBN name is very often desirable, even necessary. I just think that it should then fall in with the ICNCP rules in order to maintain some logic & standard in the wild markets (where everyone and anyone invents a new name and starts using that).

That's why I appreciate enormously the effort that Cavan has put in finding the right genera, and species, for many of the newer aquarium plants!

I believe that the _P. abies_ 'Echiniformis' was found in nature. And if not that one exactly, then many other of these so called witches brooms of spruces have been found in nature originally.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

*Re: Need help identifying my plants*



Daniel Falck said:


> Just one addition more: One problem with the use of informal names like 'Goias' is that if they ever get published in a nursery catalogue... they will be taken as valid publications of cultivar names. Ie., it is possible to "accidentally" create cultivars. This has happened for example with _Clematis_ & other ornamental plants.


I think I see what you mean here and I agree that it can be a problem. I think, though, that that sort of thing is frequently unavoidable. No matter what format is used, names become confused and mixed up. We end up with erroneous names like "Echinodorus vesuvius" and "Bacopa colorata" and even "Hemigraphis traian", which appears to be totally bogus (it's really _Hyptis lorentziana_...). Many nursery catalogs don't need our help making things confusing.


----------



## Error (Apr 16, 2004)

*Re: Need help identifying my plants*

Personally, I feel like compartmentalization and delineation of 'species' and 'cultivars' should be considered an arbitrary thing that humans like to do. We like to name stuff.

If you base your criteria on genotypes, plants ten feet from one another (particularly sexually propagated plants) are different 'species'. There is a spectrum of organisms, not a neatly divided group of boxes. The order in nature which you see is that which you have put there and is not inherent and is pretty useless except when it comes to human perception.

Cultivar is short for 'cultivated variety' and it is my thought that anything changed from what it was in the wild either by pollination, gene therapy, or whatever you've got, is a cultivar. Crosses in which the parents are known (e.g. Ludwigia repens x L. arcuata) are hybrids, but are not necessarily cultivars unless the cross happened in human hands and is not found in the wild (who can figure on that, anyway?). If it's found in the wild my feeling is that unless you can prove it's a hybrid it deserves its own (sub)species.

If it was found in the wild in a given form it is impossible to tell its progenitors unless a bunch of gene sequencing is done. And before that, who knows what to call it? Cryptocorynes in the wendtii group are pretty much all the same, for example, and probably all share a common ancestor and can undoubtedly hybridize with fertile offspring. Criteria for 'species' is a singular thing.

Nomenclature is good for a lot, but this becomes a very murky discussion when you try to parse out the details. It's like trying to figure out what a color is called, when a color is just a particular wavelength of light. When you name it that's for YOU, nature has no real plan for such a thing.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

*Re: Need help identifying my plants*

I'm moving these to a new thread. It's interesting stuff.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

When discussing plant names, especially of cultivars, one cannot ignore one of the evils of the modern world: marketing. Wholesale growers coin new plant names willy-nilly in search of one that will seduce the consumer. This odious practice results in plants of exactly the same genetic make-up being sold under different different common and cultivar names by different suppliers.


----------

