Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:24:06 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg148$foo@default> Subject: Re: taxa vs. cvs. (was: _Nepenthes_ naming)
Dear Tom & al.,
> And as a question for the taxonomists, when the parentage is the same, as
> described above, what is the difference between naming as a hybrid and naming
> as a cultivar?
The distinction is not between hybrids and cultivars but either
between hybrids and species or between taxa and cultivars. I think the
difference between hybrids and species is fairly obvious
(theoretically, at least). Taxa are in the first line items of
interest to biologists (especially taxonomists). They (i.e. taxa) are
genetically diverse populations of hopefully monophyletic origin
(e.g. the family _Nepenthaceae_ or the species _Drosera
rotundifolia_). Cultivars are genetically +/- homogeneous offspring
from ideally a single cultivated individual selected by a human being
as more valuable than other such creatures. These (cultivars) are in
the first line of interest to horticulturists and in some cases to
people selling plants commercially (I must confess that I do not know
if something like cultivars exists in animal pets, however the ICNCP
refers to plants only).
There are two independent sets of rules (codes) how to name either
taxa (ICBN) or cultivars (ICNCP). While there are many different
ranks (family, genus, species) for taxa, cultivars are all of equal
rank.
It depends on the written published intention of the author who
proposed a name first (and on some formal criteria governed by the
respective rules) whether this name is a (scientific) taxon name or a
(horticultural) cultivar name.
> It appears that in practice, naming a hybrid you have created
> is equivalant to providing a cultivar name,
A hybrid can be named as a taxon (including all individuals of equal
parentage irrespective of direction or repetition) or one clone from
several hybrids of the same parentage may be selected as a cultivar.
The two have to be treated like non-hybrid taxa in the naming
procedure.
> although these hybrid names are not treated as cultivar names.
Again, hybrid names may either be scientific or horticultural. It
depends on what you *intend*.
> Is the difference the form of the published description?
Yes. The difference is also reflected in the form of the respective
descriptions (because different rules have to be followed in order
to serve the different purposes of the name).
> If I cross mirabilis, raff. and amp. and whatever else is in the mix, I would
> assume I am not producing N. wrig., paradisea, or coccinea, but it seems likely
> that the resulting mix will produce a hybrid largely indistinguishable from
> them.
Not entirely. N. * stewartii (Moore, 1879) is the first published
scientific name for all of them (It was published before 1935 with a
Latin suffix and is therefore -even without type and Latin protologue-
a taxon name according to the ICBN). So the taxon comprising all the
hybrids of the same or similar parentage will have to be called N. *
stewartii (unless someone finds out that this name is illegitimate).
All scientific names for the same hybrid published later are
taxonomic synonyms of N. * stewartii. The names you mentioned may be
used as cultivar names belonging to the taxon N. * stewartii because
they were published before the deadline after which such (Latin, not
capitalized, not included in single quotes, not preceded by "cv.")
epithets were forbidden by the ICNCP.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST