Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen - Genres

Development of Vavilov’s concept of the intraspecific classification of cultivated plants
At the Third International Symposium on the Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants in Edinburgh
in 1998 (cf. ANDREWS et al. 1999), there was a discussion on the advisability of
introducing the term “culton” for cultivated plants in analogy to the term “taxon” used
in the taxonomy of wild plants. The proponents of the culton concept (HETTERSCHEID
and BRANDENBURG 1995; TREHANE et al. 1995) advanced two main arguments in favour
of this category:
• A plant, once domesticated, may differ radically from its wild ancestor. It becomes
something different not only in a complex of morphological and biological characters,
but also often by possessing a different genetic structure.
• The culton is a simpler category, more convenient to use. Its introduction would
allow separating the nomenclature of cultivated plants from the hierarchical system
of intraspecific taxa expressed in the narrow bounds of the Linnaean binomial
system.
We should note, however, what this nomenclatural combination does mean. For example,
let us assume that the following information is found on the label of a herbarium
sheet:
64
Lathyrus sativus L. ssp. sativus convar. cyaneus Smekal. var. azureus
(Korsh.) Smekal. f. biflora Smekal.
Type:
K-852 (VIR). Origin.: Asia Minor; reprod.: UES VIR (Ustimovsk Experimental
Station, Ukraine, Poltava distr.), 07.06.1988 (WIR).
The species name is not simply a combination. It contains:
• the author’s understanding of the species circumscription (the name given by
the author);
• the author's understanding of the species structure (intraspecific differentiation);
• each intraspecific taxon corresponds to a complex of characters, inherent only
in this taxon. The author legitimates the taxon by its description, diagnosis,
outline of the complex of characters of the taxon, and the range of their appearance;
• furthermore, it indicates that this taxon is a branch of evolution.