Registration of Cultivar Names in Ulmus - Arnoldia - Harvard ...

especially for varieties based on leaf color, continued throughout the 19th century.
In this list the liberty has been taken to make these names agree grammatically
with the generic name Ulmvs. Authority is given in the Code for Cultivated Plants
(Art. 16) to correct names in Latin form which are not in accordance with the
Rules and Recommendations of the Botanical Code and although the case of
names in the ablative is not cited, the article is considered as granting authority for
such changes.
It has several times proved difficult to decide what actually constitutes a name
intended for what is today called a cultivar. Ulmus ’Modiolina’ was referred to as
"1’orme tortillard" by Duhamel du Monceau as early as 1804 (Traite Arb. Arbust.
ed. 2. 2: 144). Should ’Tortillard’, therefore, have been listed below, or is it
Duhamel’s descriptive "common" name, comparable to the name "Fernleaf Elm"
( Ulmus ’Crispa’)? Similar in some ways are the numerous specimen trees which
have been given individual names from time to time, usually based on those of the
places or family estates in which they were growing, but often named for their
historic associations. This is particularly true of several fine examples of U.
americana in the eastern U.S.A. but it is believed that because they have been
propagated clonally, only two have warranted inclusion in this list (’Markham’
and ’Washington’). It is interesting to note that these two are not distinguished
by any special morphological characteristics and that they are distinct solely by
virtue of the place where they were originally growing.
In contrast to this there are almost a certainly number of cultivars which have
never been named. This was pointed out to me by Mr. Heijbroek, for elms have
been propagated and grown as roadside trees in the Netherlands and Flanders for
many centuries. Many of these clones have received names which have been
published, e.g. ’Klemmer’ and ’Malines’, but there are others as yet unnamed and
unlisted. In one case, that of ’Schuurhoek’, one of these nameless clones has been
retaken into cultivation relatively recently and named.
Decisions about the synonymy of the many cultivars distinguished by their leaf
variation or habit of growth have been very difficult to reach. It is possible that at
different times more than one clone has been known by the same name and during
the last two hundred years or so very similar sports may have arisen more than
once in each species. Any information which will help clarify the identity of
these plants will be most welcome.
According to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants,
a particular name can be correct for only one cultivar, and, if it has been given
to more than one, the other usages must be treated as synonyms. In the list that
follows it will be readily seen that certain names have been used over and over
again for different clones (for example ’Pendula’ has been proposed eight times).
Fortunately the Code for Cultivated Plants does not bind one rigidly to a rule of
priority, as does the Botanical Code, and by the selection of a later well known
name it has often been possible to reduce the duplication of acceptable names.
However, in other cases this has proved impossible. The obvious way out would
be to propose new names to replace the duplicates,
but there is a chance that
some of the clones no longer exist and such names would then be superfluous.
[ 44