The RHS Advisory Panel on Nomenclature and Taxonomy
Part 2: Alan Leslie
(This article first appeared in The New Plantsman 4(3):170-174., 1997)
Following the introduction to the work of the RHS Advisory Panel on Nomenclature and Taxonomy by Chris Brickell and Piers Trehane (The New Plantsman 4(2): 115, 1997) and the notes on its approach to family and generic problems, this account is designed to highlight some of the other important areas in which the Advisory Panel has concentrated its attention. Detailed accounts of some of the more interesting individual cases will appear in later issues as a continuing series of Nomenclatural Notes, but here the intention is to demonstrate how many complex problems may derive from an apparently simple listing as The RHS Plant Finder.
Translations and transliterations
Both are the source of many confusions, misunderstandings and mistakes. From an early stage in its deliberations the Panel considered that all cultivar epithets should be rendered in the language in which they were first published, and not be translated. This view has subsequently been endorsed by the 1995 International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Trehane et al, 1995). It may at first seem awkward dealing with a name in an unfamiliar language, but it is partly a matter of sheer courtesy to the raiser to force oneself to surmount this barrier. A ‘foreign’ name may also have the advantage of indicating the likely origin of the plant, but much more importantly as far as communication is concerned individual translations may vary. Words in one language may equate to a range of possible alternatives in another, and moreover experience shows that not everyone gets the translation right!
The result may be that a plant is sold under a variety of names with all the confusion and frustration this can cause. Plants move so readily over many international boundaries, especially within an area such as the European Union that one needs one name and one name only for each plant. Anyone naming a new cultivar which has the potential for international appeal needs to bear this in mind.
It is for this reason that The RHS Plant Finder now lists Achillea ‘Lachsschönheit’ as the primary entry for plants which have been sold in the United Kingdom as ‘Salmon Beauty’. Where a translation is known to have been used this is given as a cross-reference, so that everyone is guided to the accepted name.
Transliteration, the rendering of letters from one writing system to another, is permitted by the Cultivated Plant Code and there are now clear guidelines as to how this should be done. Chinese epithets must follow the Pinyin system, Japanese the Hepburn system, whilst for Korean names the McCune-Reischauer scheme must be employed. All other transliterations should follow the standards employed by the United States Library of Congress (Barry, 1991). The real problem is to find the names in their original script to check on the transliteration and whilst it is the Panel's aim to ensure consistency in this area this must inevitably be a long-term aim. Such consistency is important to the gardener as different transliteration standards can produce quite different results in Roman script with all the potential for confusion this can and does cause. Work has begun on a systematic approach to Japanese rhododendron and azalea cultivar epithets and the Panel would like to acknowledge the considerable help already given in this regard by John Sargent and Barry Yinger.
Cultivar epithets, trademarks and trade designations
The increasing use of Plant Breeders' Rights protection has led to the widespread use of partially "coded" epithets for such plants, often incorporating just part of the applicants name and resulting in word or words that have little meaning except as the legal label for the plant concerned. These plants are then traded, in addition, under what appears to be a more normal, approachable, epithet. These latter trade designations may vary from country to country. To complicate matters still further the trade designations may be trademarked or incorporate a trademark. It is now quite clear that the "coded" name must be regarded as the accepted cultivar epithet and is the one universal label for the plant. This is now reflected in The RHS Plant Finder entries. Wherever possible any relevant trade designation is cross-referenced to its accepted name, but in many cases it takes much time and effort to tie up the two parts and the job is not yet completed. Indeed it is on-going as new ones are coined each year. Such dual naming is unfortunate to say the least and to many may seem unnecessary, but it cannot now be ignored.
Trademarks may not form, or be part of, a cultivar epithet and slowly but surely these are being weeded out. Such marks should not, in fact, be used without the permission of the trademark owner. However, since many holders of Plant Breeders' Rights have been using the registered trademark symbol ( R ) to indicate that sort of protection there is a considerable tangle to be unravelled.
Punctuation and spelling
The 1995 Cultivated Plant Code has helped enormously in making many of the regulations in this area much clearer and more precise. However areas still remain, especially with botanical names, where there is room for individual interpretation and thus inconsistency. Sometimes more time and hot air can be expended on these apparently minor matters than on other seemingly weightier issues! One of the consequences of the Panel's deliberations in this area should be a reassessment of the Botanical Code to make the relevant sections easier to operate in practice.
Sometimes an apparent error in spelling is a deliberate choice by the author, so every case has to be investigated individually. Argyranthemum ‘Qinta White’, for example, is a deliberate mis-spelling of the Portuguese word "quinta" (meaning country house or villa). The plant was originally found in Portugal in the grounds of a house using this spelling.
The correct spelling of names commemorating individual people and places has been another source of concern and a good number have now been checked against original publications and intentions. Where necessary amendments have then been made so that, for instance the plant earlier listed as Primula gaubaeana, and named for an E. Gauba, is now correctly P. gaubana (cf. Botanical Code Art. 60 C(c)).
The resolution of some spellings has been a hard nut to crack and so far the widely grown montbretia cultivar variously listed as ‘Solfatare’ or ‘Solfaterre’ defies resolution. It seems that the originator, the French nurseryman Lemoine was inconsistent, but the vital nursery catalogues of the 1880s cannot yet be traced to pinpoint the very first usage. The chase continues.
All manner of small stylistic matters have also had to be considered by the Panel - the use of apostrophes, hyphens, capital letters and so on. These may seem minor considerations but they are important to the list maker, label writer and editor!
Double-flowered variants
The Panel's early deliberations repeatedly involved discussions of the earliest epithets relevant to double-flowered forms of a range of familiar garden plants, especially those involving "Plena" in one form or another (‘Flore Pleno’, ‘Pleniflora’, ‘Plena’ etc). Not only was there a considerable danger that many familiar epithets were likely to be replaced but the precise application of many was often particularly hard to tie down. The Panel thus decided that with a few exceptions a moratorium would be placed on such changes. The exceptions would include only clearly misapplied epithets and any latin form epithets first published after 1958.
Trinomials
A great many names in The RHS Plant Finder comprise a generic name, a specific epithet and a third element in latin form but without indication of rank, e.g. Cichorium intybus album, the white-flowered variant of chicory. As names in this format are not strictly permissible the Panel has made considerable efforts to resolve as many of these cases as possible. In this particular instance album was in use before the 1959 watershed for such latin-form epithets (e.g. Perry, 1957) and could thus legitimately be treated as a cultivar epithet, ‘Album’. There are still many remaining and advice on these is always welcome.
Dubious names
A further catalogue of entries, prefixed in The RHS Plant Finder by an asterisk, comprises entries which have so far evaded all attempts to ensure that they are "good", accepted names. Further research in some cases will show that indeed they are acceptable, if often obscure taxa and the stigmatising asterisk can be removed. Others will turn out to be nursery inventions or misunderstandings. Nepeta longipes for example has been listed as ‘dubious’ for some years and the matter has now been pursued with the nurseries concerned and the National Collection holder (from whom all the material now circulating seems to have originated). The ultimate origin of the plant remains a mystery and the name appears to have no botanical authenticity whatsoever. Botanical opinion is that the plant is probably a garden hybrid involving N. multibracteata, so it is now proposed that the plant should receive a new and distinctive cultivar epithet. There are many more such cases awaiting resolution and wherever possible they will be included in further Nomenclatural Notes in this series.
Attribution of cultivars
Another minefield! When a selected variant is derived from only one species, without admixture of any other it will usually be given under that species in The RHS Plant Finder. Inconsistencies arise owing to the variation in how entries are presented to The RHS Plant Finder each year. Some nurseries may submit a new cultivar just with its generic attribution and cultivar epithet. Others may supply another cultivar with both generic and specific attribution and yet both cultivars belong to the same species. Neither listing is wrong but the Panel tries to see that a consistent approach is taken in such cases. A recent case involved the Clematis cultivar ‘Helsingborg’. This had been listed as simply C. ‘Helsingborg’ but its introducer, the internationally renowned clematis grower, Raymond Evison has pointed out this is a pure C. alpina selection and so in future editions the entry will be C. alpina ‘Helsingborg’.
Cultivar-groups
The 1995 Cultivated Plant Code made significant changes to the regulations surrounding the use and formation of horticultural collective names. As a result existing practice needs to be reviewed and the Panel is currently checking lists of all such names in the RHS Plant Finder.
Fern nomenclature
Ever a source of controversy, fern names at almost all taxonomic ranks provide material for vigorous debate. Fern cultivars are unique in that a system of latinised descriptive epithets has traditionally been used to name new variants, e.g. Polystichum setiferum ‘Congestum Cristatum’. Whilst such epithets admittedly have some instructive content, after 1958 new names in such form have fallen foul of the Cultivated Plant Code. Following an initiative taken by Peter Barnes, then Botanist at Wisley, in company with leading fern nurseryman Martin Rickard, a system was devised to retain some of the existing latin words as cultivar-group epithets in combination with acceptable cultivar epithets. The new nomenclature is slowly working its way through the system. Recently the Panel has asked the British Pteridological Society to review the cultivar-groups they considered desirable to recognise and to allocate, where appropriate, the cultivars listed as entries in The RHS Plant Finder. Their account, with brief diagnoses for the cultivar-groups and their cultivar members will be published in due course and should provide a sound platform for fern nomenclature.
All this and much more has concentrated the attention of Panel members over the last four years. Work has also been undertaken for example in chasing up un-named material offered under collector's numbers, in ensuring consistency in how collector's numbers are cited, dealing with plants offered simply under a parental combination, in sorting out the best treatment of annual cultivars and series, ensuring the right gender of latin form epithets. The RHS Plant Finder is very much like an iceberg -seemingly a big and impressive object above water but with so much more going on underneath as well. The Panel will never be short of material to work on and is deeply grateful to the many individuals who have been able to help and advise in its deliberations.
References
Barry, R K (compiler and editor), (1991). ALA-LC Romanization tables - transliteration schemes for non-Roman Scripts approved by the Library of Congress and the American Library Association. Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution Service, Washington, DC.
Perry, F (1957). Collins Guide to Border Plants. Collins, London.
Trehane, R P (editor) et al., (1995). International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants - 1995. Quarterjack Publishing, Wimborne, UK.
Alan Leslie, RHS Garden Wisley, Woking, Surrey GU23