Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen - Genres

Theoretical and practical problems in the classification and nomenclature of cultivated plants
User-friendliness
The use of epithets in the vernacular, and the establishment of names by descriptions
in any language, may be considered by many to be more user-friendly than the
mandatory use of Botanical Latin for the names and validating descriptions under the
Botanical Code. However, freedom from the demands of Latin may make it easier for
unqualified or incompetent persons to make contributions to the nomenclature of cultivated
plants, which might not always be advantageous. The simpler (two-tiered)
system of ranks of the Cultivated Code might likewise be considered more userfriendly
than the system of the Botanical Code, where there are at least three ranks,
and any number of supplementary ranks may be used, below the rank of genus. On
the other hand, for complex crops of world-wide distribution, which may have involved
two or more independent domestications, the simpler system may sometimes
be considered inadequate. In the long run, the question of user-friendliness may depend
upon how easily and how reliably the questions that form appendices 7 and 8 of
the Cultivated Code can be answered.
Conclusions
The above discussion has shown that there are disadvantages and advantages in
the nomenclatural systems of both the Botanical and Cultivated Codes; that is, other
things probably are equal. Botanical Code names should preferably be used for taxa
of cultivated plants down to the level to which the hierarchical structure of the variation
is conserved; it may be that of a group of two or more hybridising genera or species,
a genus, a species, a subgenus, a convarietas or a varietas. For the discussion,
use and marketing of plants of taxa that meet the criteria of being a cultivar, Cultivated
Code names should preferably be used. An assemblage of cultivated plants,
including (but not exclusively) an assemblage of two or more cultivars, which shows
one or more characters that make recognition of the assemblage as a named group
to be desirable, should preferably be given a cultivar-group name. The category convarietas
should preferably not be considered the equivalent of cultivar-group, but
should be included as an additional botanical rank between subspecies and varietas,
more adequately to express the hierarchical pattern of variation at that level. This
implies, of course, the possibility of the acceptance of taxa of wild plants at the convarietal
rank; the possibility of a cultivar-group and a convarietas being coextensive is
of course not excluded. The cultivar-group name will be subject to the homonymy
requirements of the denomination class, but the name of the convarietas will not.
58