Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen - Genres

C. JEFFREY
fication, although the analogous process of establishing standards is recommended.
As a consequence, the application of names under the Cultivated Code might be
considered less certain and less easy to determine than under the Botanical Code.
From this follows the great importance accorded to the registration of names by the
Cultivated Code, in contrast to the Botanical Code, into which attempts to introduce
registration have justifiably been rejected by the taxonomic community. On the other
hand, this lesser certainty is offset by the fact that the typification of many botanical
names, published for taxa of cultivated plants below the rank of genus before 1
January 1958, is often extremely difficult. Since the majority of such names were
published by botanists working in institutes in eastern Europe and northern Asia,
there is a very great need for the compilation of a catalogue and data-base of type
specimens of names of taxa of cultivated plants conserved in the herbaria of the
countries concerned. Such a project might well be undertaken jointly by the Vavilov
Institute in St. Petersburg and IPK Gatersleben, and funding might be sought from
organisations interested in promoting scientific cooperation between western Europe
and Russia.
Valid publication and priority
Determining the usability and correctness of names involves, among other things,
ascertaining whether or not they meet the criteria of valid publication (Botanical
Code) or establishment (Cultivated Code), and of the date of publication of the work,
if any, in which these criteria were met. Both for names of cultivated plants governed
by the Botanical Code, and for those governed by the Cultivated Code, there are
particular difficulties in this process. From 1 January 1953, exact citation of place of
publication of the basionym, and exact indication of rank, and from 1 January 1958,
indication of the type are criteria which must have been met for botanical names to
have been validly published. These provisions have often been overlooked by those
publishing botanical names. On the other hand, such demands are not made by the
Cultivated Code for the establishment of the epithets of names of taxa of cultivated
plants, which may even be established simply by inclusion as an accepted denomination
in a register maintained by a statutory plant registration authority. These less
formal processes, however, may be considered more easily to lead to nomenclatural
duplication and uncertainty as to the correct name of a cultivated taxon. Also, a name
effectively but not validly published before 1 January 1959 under the Botanical Code
might have to be regarded as providing an established cultivar or cultivar-group epithet
if the provisions of Arts. 2.2 and 22.1 of the Cultivated Code are met.
57